Crossrail Bill

Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2007.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I see that members of the Committee are bright-eyed and bushy-tailed and longing to get on with our deliberations. Hon. Gentlemen may remove their jackets if they wish: that applies to all of our proceedings.

Clause 30

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 49, in clause 30, page 20, line 37, after ‘Regulation’, insert ‘and other interested parties’.

I am sure that we will endeavour to live up to your strictures to be alert, Lady Winterton, and will make good law. The clause will remove the requirement for new access contracts to be approved by the rail regulator where they relate to a railway facility forming or to the principal Crossrail tunnel running through central London. The powers under the clause are exercisable by the Secretary of State, albeit after consultation with the Office of Rail Regulation about the terms of the contract.

The purpose of the amendment is to insert the words, “other interested parties”, after the word “Regulation”. While it is wholly appropriate that the regulator should be consulted in such a situation, other parties likely to be affected by the provision are excluded from the consultation. In particular, parties to the contract itself will have something to say on the subject. The amendment is designed to allow other interested parties to communicate with the Secretary of State before she decides to bypass the provisions of the Railways Act 1993 and allow an access contract to come into force without the approval of the regulator. While the motivation behind the clause is clear and I have no objection to it, I think that it would benefit from a more open and fair consultation under the amendment.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

Good morning, Lady Winterton. May I welcome you back to the Chair?

It is often advisable to start as one means to go on, but I will not do so this morning, because I intend to begin by more or less accepting the principle of the amendment. That pattern is not likely to be repeated throughout the rest of the day. The amendment requires consultation with interested parties on the terms of a proposed access contract for Crossrail services in the central tunnel that would not be subject to the ORR’s approval. There is nothing in the clause to stop the Secretary of State from consulting as she considers appropriate. The point of subsection (4) is to ensure consultation with the ORR, as the body with expertise and responsibility, on the terms of access contracts.

Although I do not think that it is absolutely necessary, the amendment does have some merit. The only reason that I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it is that I would like parliamentary counsel to see the proposed wording to ensure that it is robust. If the hon. Gentleman agrees to withdraw the amendment, we will bring it back on Report and give it a fair wind.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

It is such a shame that the Minister does not propose to carry on in the same vein all day. He has rather knocked me off my feet by accepting, this early in the day, that one of our amendments would have a good effect. Given what he says, I am very happy for him to pass the wording on to parliamentary counsel and to bring back the proposal on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 50, in clause 30, page 20, line 40, at end insert

‘which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.’.

This is a probing amendment with the purpose of seeking a clarification from the Minister about the appropriate parliamentary procedure called into action by the clause. I may well have misunderstood that procedure, but I should be grateful for clarification. In other parts of the Bill where the Secretary of State exercises her powers by means of statutory instruments, such an instrument is subject to annulment by Parliament. That is not so in clause 30. As the Committee will be aware, statutory instruments may take one of three forms: some are passed by the affirmative resolution procedure, under which they must be approved by both Houses before they can become law; some are passed by the negative procedure under which they are merely laid before Parliament; and some are not laid before Parliament, but Parliament can annul them. The parent Act states in which form the relevant power should be exercised under parliamentary procedure. It would appear from clause 30(5) and (6) that the statutory instrument in question is to be laid before Parliament, but is not subject to annulment. Should I therefore assume that the appropriate procedure is the affirmative resolution procedure? If so, will the Minister explain why it is different from the other ways in which the statutory instrument is used in the Bill?

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

Clause 30 enables the Secretary of State, by order, to remove the need for ORR approval to access contracts or amendments so that the Crossrail service can use the central tunnel or railway facility associated with it. It is essentially new infrastructure, specifically designed to carry Crossrail services, so a reserve power is appropriate to ensure that those services are not subject to approval. The Secretary of State would be required to consult the ORR on the terms of any contract to which the order relates.

In response to the hon. Gentleman’s question, the statutory instrument is not legislative in that respect, unlike the regulations that are made under clause 33, which are subject to annulment. However, the making of an order under clause 30 can reasonably be delegated to the Secretary of State, who would inform Parliament of such a measure. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee will look at the proposal and we will pay attention to any observations and recommendations that it makes. With those reassurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

As I said at the outset, the amendment was very much of a probing nature, and I tabled it to understand exactly how the Government intend to use their powers. I listened carefully to the Minister, and I shall be interested to see what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee proposes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 32

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 51, in clause 32, page 22, line 40, at end insert—

‘( ) Any person who suffers loss by the directions under this section shall be entitled to be compensated by the Secretary of State.’.

Clause 32 is another example of measures that we have seen consistently during the course of the Bill, in which the Government give themselves more power to direct the private sector to comply with the needs of Crossrail. As we have said before, this is an exceptional undertaking and, therefore, it is an exceptional Bill, which requires exceptional powers. We have said several times that such powers are often wholly necessary. We have seen such measures in previous Bills, as the Minister often reminded us last week.

However worthy the clause, I doubt whether the Minister will fail to reflect our amendment. Do the Government want to be seen to be digging up the centre of London without due regard to people maybe adversely affected by the project? I certainly applaud the exhaustive work done by the Select Committee in listening to the concerns of individuals and businesses on which the project will have an impact. For the same reason, I welcome the clauses providing for compensation to be paid to the railway asset operator, who may suffer financial loss as a result of Government intervention. We are therefore surprised and concern that there is no provision for compensation in the clause.

My amendment proposes that at the end of line 40 in clause 32, we insert the words:

“Any person who suffers loss by the directions under this section shall be entitled to be compensated by the Secretary of State.”

The clause enables the Government to force an owner of a railway facility to open it up for the purposes of constructing Crossrail. It provides that the ORR must approve the terms of any such imposed contract except, crucially, the terms relating to financial charges. In other words, the Government can demand to enter into an access contract with the facility operator but they can also decide how much they would pay for the privilege. The matter is apparently not open to negotiation, nor to independent scrutiny via the regulator, which strikes me as unfair.

The purpose of my amendment therefore is to ensure that facility owners do not suffer financial loss as a result of any Government intervention. If a facility owner is forced to enter into a contract with the Government under terms which mean that they get less than they would normally get for such a contract they should be appropriately compensated to make up the difference. As I said at the outset, I accept that a project of this nature requires the Secretary of State to take on certain exceptional powers, but I do accept that the private sector or the private citizen should necessarily suffer as the clause implies they will. I look forward to receiving some reassurance from the Minister.

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

I, too, seek clarification from the Minister on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon. The hybrid Bill Committee spent a lot of time making sure that people would be fully compensated and that compensation codes would be written into the whole Crossrail process. Indeed, we listened to many petitioners who thought that they were not as well supported respect as they should be.

The general thrust of the Committee’s work was that those people should be protected, and in our report to the House we made that point again and again. They think that the Government, not deliberately but often as a result of insensitivity, can roll over them without paying regard to their concerns or their need to be properly considered. I was proud to be a member of that Committee for that very reason, because our work was a perfect example of good government working in the way that it should. I should like to know whether the Government can demand to enter into an access contract with a facility owner and can decide, as my hon. Friend said, how much they will pay for the privilege. If they can take such action, it would run counter to the general thrust of the Select Committee, which would be a matter of concern.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

May I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, South and for Wimbledon? There is likely to be a new regime on large-scale planning applications which the Government will wish to push through Parliament, and I do not want to prejudge the nature of the debate both in the House of Commons and in another place. However, I have some sympathy with the Government’s view that some large-scale developments, whether Crossrail, airport expansion or nuclear power sites, are vital construction projects, and we simply cannot allow the long public inquiries and enormous delays that affected similar developments in recent decades.

Obviously, one of the great difficulties is that we have a culture in the House that gives individuals the right to have their say. There is also a process of legal and sub-judicial inquiry. One of the attractive aspects of the French scheme—I accept that France has a completely different legal system—is the notion that certain projects are in the national interest. Of course, the flip side is that individuals who suffer receive compensation, no questions asked. In the case of Crossrail, that would be residents who live nearby.

The amendment, which I hope is helpful, at least begins to point in the direction in which I suspect the Government want to go with projects such as Crossrail. In other words, they wish to streamline the entire planning system, and I have some sympathy with that view. Clearly, we need to seek out precisely what is intended and we have always had an eye towards local opinion forming. However, the other side of that equation must surely be that those individuals whose rights are subverted in some way qualify immediately for compensation. The amendment, I hope, would at least provide a step towards that—a template that the Government must look at to ensure the balance between the protection of local desires, needs and rights and the broad interests of the country.

There is no doubt that the broad interests of London, the south-east and, indeed, the country require that Crossrail be built rapidly and to high specification, and that it be up and running at the earliest stage. However, there is little doubt that the lives of hundreds of thousands of people will be inconvenienced. In relation to clause 32, we are really discussing the extent to which the Secretary of State will take powers beyond those envisaged in the Bill. Those individuals who suffer should be fully compensated for whatever rights they have to forego in the public interest.

I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to that point, even if he feels that the wording of the amendment is not quite right, because we need to get this important debate right if we are to ensure that the large-scale construction projects to which the House will be committed in the coming decades are built properly and to specification, but in a way that minimises the dissatisfaction of the many people who will suffer as a result.

Peter Soulsby (Labour, Leicester South)

I have no doubt that the amendment is well intentioned, but I spent the best part of two years serving on the hybrid Bill Committee and, as the hon. Member for Northampton, South reminded us, that Committee spent a considerable time looking at issues of compensation and how land and property owners would be affected by Crossrail during construction and once it was operational.

We looked in considerable detail at those whose land and property might be taken for the Crossrail project, those who might be affected by the railway passing under their property and the extent to which the existing law and regulations would provide them with adequate compensation. In broad terms, we concluded that the compensation code, about which most of us knew very little when we embarked on the process, was widely based and appropriate for the overwhelming majority of situations that would emerge during construction. There were one or two particular examples to consider, such as the Smithfield market traders, who might not have got adequate compensation under the code due to a rather peculiar and long-standing arrangement for their leases, but that was very much the exception.

While I am sympathetic to ensuring that people get compensation, I can say that those Members who served on the hybrid Bill Committee were in general reassured that the ways in which the code would operate would be adequate for the overwhelming majority of circumstances. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the clause is sufficient to ensure that the compensation code will apply in the circumstances that have been envisaged here and be more than adequate, as we concluded it will be, in other circumstances.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

I think that I can offer reassurance to all Members who have expressed concern about the clause. First, I draw their attention to the fact that it stands within the part of the Bill entitled “Railway matters”, which sets out a framework for the operation of Crossrail services following the construction of the Crossrail tunnel.

Subsection (1) states:

“The Secretary of State may give directions to a facility owner requiring him to enter into an access contract”.

The facility owner in that regard is the owner of the rail network—in other words, Network Rail is the intended facility owner. I can understand why colleagues may have thought that that wording referred to owners of private enterprises on the tunnel route, but that is not the intention of the clause.

Clause 32 deals with the situation in which agreement cannot be reached with the infrastructure owner for an access contract for Crossrail passenger services that for at least some of their journey use part of the central London tunnel. It makes use of the section 18 procedure under the 1993 Act for agreements that have already been negotiated, but the process is modified so that the ORR must approve the contract’s duration and the non-financial terms that address directions made by the Secretary of State.

The ORR will set appropriate financial terms for the access contract so that the infrastructure owner is appropriately paid for the access it provides. Clause 32 forces it to sell parts for use by Crossrail services, rather than selling them to another operator or leaving them fallow. If that requires contracts between the infrastructure owner and other operators to be amended, it is dealt with under clause 33, which considers compensation. As regards the payment of money between the rail owner and the train operator, the ORR must consider whether to undertake an access charge review, which would ensure that the access charges could be reset as necessary.

As to the payment of money between the Crossrail project and any affected train operators, I expect any further compensation necessary to be dealt with under the normal industry process or adaptations agreed with the ORR, as I explained at our last sitting in response to the debate on amendment No. 46.

Essentially, any existing operator that has to change its access to the existing rail network—not the Crossrail network—as a result of Crossrail services running will be forced to enter into a revised access charge regime. That means that, in the first instance, the existing operator will pay fewer or less access charges than it would normally pay without Crossrail services being there.

Further to that, if the operator suffers a loss of business economically as a result of losing a particular path to a Crossrail service, it will be up to normal industry procedures to ascertain what compensation has to be paid to that train operating company. That will be dealt with under clause 33 but according to normal accepted industry procedures, which have already been proved to work quite well.

Following that explanation, I urge the hon. Member for Wimbledon to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I listened carefully to the Minister—certainly to the latter part of his explanation on how there will be compensation under clause 33. However, I bring him back to the beginning of his speech and the fact that the facility operator post-construction is bound to be Network Rail. The intention is that it should be Network Rail.

It may be the intention for the facility to be one that is owned by Network Rail, but that is not what the Bill says. The Minister should therefore either agree to the Bill saying “Network Rail facility” or, if he intends the provision to be wider, accept my amendment. If he is not prepared to consider amending the Bill in that way, I shall test the Committee’s view on the amendment.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

I accept that “the facility owner” is an ambiguous term, but it has been recommended for the purposes of the Bill and, although I am speculating, given that Network Rail is currently the private owner of the infrastructure, I do not expect that situation to change at any point in the next 10 years during the construction of Crossrail. However, if it were to change, that would have a knock-on effect on the existing legislation. Simply to talk about the owner of the infrastructure is far less ambiguous than the hon. Gentleman suggests. However, if he is going to ask the Committee to vote on the amendment, I must challenge the premise, which he stated clearly, of compensating private owners along the route of the Crossrail tunnel during construction.

I have already made it quite clear that this part of the Bill refers to the operation of passenger services following the construction of Crossrail. The hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the lack of compensation arrangements for private owners who might be inconvenienced by construction do not apply in this case. I again urge him to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Again, I have listened carefully to the Minister. The amendment does not say anything about construction. It talks about the loss suffered by direction under this part of the Bill, if directed by the Secretary of State. It was the Minister’s presumption that it deals with construction. It could be relevant during construction, but it could also be relevant to the operational phase.

From our many visits to railway stations up and down the country, the Minister and I know that at a number of stations—I cannot think of one on the Crossrail route—Network Rail is the prime operator, but certain parts of the infrastructure around the station are owned by heritage groups and others. They might be the facility operator at some stage. To facilitate Crossrail, it might be necessary to use their lines and their paths.

The Minister seems to imply that compensation is in some way wrong. In the spirit of the Bill, we have accepted that exceptional powers are needed that will sometimes override the private interest for the public good, but that there should be some payment for that overriding. Therefore, I am not minded to accept his explanation unless he can reassure me that he has accepted that “facility owner” is an ambiguous term. Unless he proposes to clarify and redefine that matter on Report, I will test the will of the Committee on the amendment.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

I hope that this is the last time that I contribute to this debate. First, “facility owner” is the conventional term used in all rail legislation, and it has been used in previous rail legislation. Secondly, it is important to respect existing industry practices. Any conflict between train operating companies over pathways is already provided for in existing industry processes. It is not up to the Committee to start taking the existing processes to bits. They already have the support of all the train operating companies, the ORR, the Government and Network Rail.

The hon. Gentleman is in danger of taking the Committee into a vote on a misinterpretation of what the clause means. I absolutely agree with him that if the industry process did not already exist, it would be important for the Government and the Bill to make a point of ensuring that a compensation process did exist. However, as the industry processes already exist, and as the industry itself is not asking for any change to them, I fail to see the point of taking the issue to a vote. If he does so, I shall urge my hon. Friends to vote against the amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

After the Minister replied and at the outset of my remarks, I said that we accept that there are normal industry processes and that those are dealt with under clause 33, as he also pointed out. This is a particular issue about a particular subsection. I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I shall withdraw the amendment, but give notice that we might table a similar proposal on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 33

Susan Kramer (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

I want to make some brief remarks. To someone sitting outside this room, our previous discussion would have sounded as though it was taking place at cross-purposes. My interpretation of the language is rather closer to the Minister’s than that of the hon. Member for Wimbledon, who sits on the Conservative Front Bench. However, the issue that has not been raised and which is relevant to the clause is the implications for freight and for freight rail access along routes it currently uses after Crossrail has come into play.

As I said earlier, the implications for London are extremely serious. London has no aggregate resources within its own boundaries and the only mechanism for bringing aggregate into London is freight rail. Those pathways need to be protected in some way. While there may be compensation for the freight rail provider, there is no mechanism for dealing with the problem that Londoners will face without the ability to bring in bulk product for a variety of purposes. The Minister should address that issue.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

I understand and sympathise with the hon. Lady’s concerns about freight as affected by Crossrail. Clause 33 is relevant if a direction has been made requiring the grant of access rights for Crossrail services outside the central London tunnel. However, I hope she will be reassured that there might then be the need for a further process of amendment of any other access rights that are in conflict. Clearly conflicting rights are likely to have been picked up and dealt with at earlier stages as a consequence of ORR oversight, subject to its new duty, and reviews of contracts under clause 27, but some could remain.

Clause 34

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 18, in clause 34, page 24, line 5, leave out ‘terminate the agreement’ and insert

‘instruct the Office of Rail Regulation to review the agreement and to determine how to vary it in light of those directions’.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 19, in clause 34, page 24, line 9, leave out

‘Secretary of State has terminated the franchise agreement’

and insert

‘Office of Rail Regulation has acted’.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

We move on to a clause that deals with the impact of the Crossrail project on the existing railway franchise agreements. The amendments are very much in line with one another as they deal with exactly the same issue. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to terminate a franchise if the parties to the franchise cannot agree on how it is to be modified to deal with the consequences of the Crossrail project, and only in those circumstances.

I can understand that some sort of external arbitration will be necessary if such a situation arises. After all, none of us wants the construction or operation of Crossrail to be held up by a disagreement between two sides to an existing franchise where that franchise agreement will have an impact on Crossrail. However, giving the casting vote in such a dispute to the Secretary of State is not necessarily the solution to the problem. The power to mediate in such disputes should be given to the ORR, which is transparently more of an independent and impartial expert body than the Secretary of State and so perfectly suited to carry out this role.

Amendment No. 19 would change the wording of subsection (3) so that instead of terminating the franchise himself, the Secretary of State will instruct the ORR to review the agreement and try to mediate to achieve an equitable solution. It would therefore revise a subsequent subsection to reflect the change made by amendment No. 18. I hope the Minister will look favourably on the suggestion that the Secretary of State should not mediate and that the ORR, as an impartial and expert body, should take on that role.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

Clause 34 deals with the consequences for franchises affected by the amendment of access rights held by the franchisee in order to facilitate Crossrail services. That may arise when, under clauses 28(2) or 33(2), the ORR directs amendments to access rights. If those amendments affect the carrying out of a franchise agreement, the parties to that agreement must use all reasonable endeavours to vary its terms. If they fail to agree, the Secretary of State can terminate the franchise agreement. The ORR can direct that compensation as payable and determine the amount. Amendment No. 18 and amendment No. 19, which would apply to the consequential changes, would remove the Secretary of State’s power to terminate the franchise agreements when agreement could not be reached between the parties and instead allow the ORR to vary the franchise agreement for the parties.

While I approve the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, it is unsatisfactory for two reasons. First, it would place the ORR in a role completely outside its normal regulatory function. It does not regulate franchise agreements and has no experience in doing so, or in setting or writing the minimum specification for them. The hon. Gentleman suggested that it has expertise in that area. It does not.

Franchise oversight and construction lie with the Department for Transport, and lay previously with the Strategic Rail Authority. The functions of franchising and of overseeing access contracts are in practice well connected, but they are separate functions undertaken by separate bodies with separate responsibilities.

More importantly, the amendment would remove a necessary protection for the holder of the franchise. Agreement might not have been reached because the franchise holder considered that an amended franchise would not be a viable business proposition for him, so he would wish it to be terminated with compensation. In that case, it is far more satisfactory for the Secretary of State, who holds a franchising function, to terminate such an agreement with compensation and then refranchise the service. Therefore, following that explanation, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

It may well be that the ORR does not have the expertise, as the Minister described from first-hand knowledge, but in its function as a regulator it is an expert, independent and impartial observer. Many in the industry might prefer that that body conducted the franchise renegotiation process, rather than the Department for Transport, but that is a discussion for another day and I am not tempted to open it now.

I am interested in the Minister’s reference to an unintended consequence of my amendment being that it might affect the business viability of a franchise and, therefore, might undermine the ability of a franchise holder to terminate if a franchise became unviable and the ability to get compensation. That is certainly not a consequence that I had anticipated.

The spirit of the amendment is to look at a resolution where the access is purely to do with Crossrail. I could not envisage circumstances under which such a minor access arrangement would invalidate the whole franchise, but I am prepared to accept the Minister’s explanation that in certain cases it might, and, therefore, that protection should certainly be in place. Owing to that unintended consequence, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 35

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

The explanatory notes for the clause state that it disapplies the prohibition in section 25 of the 1993 Act on public sector operators being a franchisee in respect of passenger rail services. Section 25 of the 1993 Act effectively privatised British Rail and introduced, or was the forerunner of, today’s industry structure and provides that certain public sector bodies cannot be franchisees. Those bodies include Ministers of the Crown, local authorities and passenger transport authorities. For better or for worse, depending on how we look at it, it is a competitive system whereby private sector companies bid for and operate rail franchises. The question is, therefore, whether that system is working.

If the Department for Transport believes the system to be working elsewhere in the country, why should Crossrail be different? We all know the answer to that. The clause is so worded so that Transport for London can operate Crossrail, post-construction. That raises the question whether it is intended that the bidding process will see TfL as the sole bidder.

We all understand that that is what is intended by the Mayor, with his megalomaniac tendencies, writing blank cheques from Londoners’ bank accounts. Not necessarily every Londoner would agree with that statement. Perhaps we will hear this from the Minister, but as we understand it, the Mayor has just bankrolled the construction phase of Crossrail. However, should that automatically give him the right to operate it? After all, are we convinced that the Mayor is a good operator and are we clear that that would be in the public interest? Can we be sure that health and safety standards will be properly met?

If one examined the record of TfL in operating the underground, it would at best be described as patchy. TfL management likes to blame the infracos and everyone else, but the operating statistics of the underground show that some 40 per cent. of the delays are due to TfL and its inability to operate efficiently. Do we really want the major national project of Crossrail to operate with 40 per cent. inefficiencies? I am not sure that anybody wants that. Surely even the Mayor, who at best is economical with the truth at times, does not want that or wish to publicise it. [Interruption.] Hon. Members should read the June edition of “The Londoner” and they will see what I mean.

Can we be sure that it is in the public interest to have TfL as the constructor and the operator? Where are the checks and balances? If TfL, which blames anybody but itself for faults, has both roles, who will it blame? Would it not be amusing to see the operation arm of TfL blaming the construction arm? No, it would not, because the only people to suffer would be those who travel on Crossrail. The public purse would also suffer.

It looks as though the clause has been written in so that TfL will have the right to bid for this franchise. Is it to be an exclusive franchise? How long will it run for? Who else may bid? The franchise system that the Government have created allows for franchises of seven to 10 years. Is it intended that the Crossrail operating franchise will be of the same length? I suspect not.

I ask all those questions because the shadow Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers), has intimated that we favour some reintegration of the network. TfL being the owner, if not the manager of the network and the operating model, could fit into a model of reintegration later on. However, it would not fit in with the Government’s current model of operation for the railways. I ask the Minister, is that what is intended in the clause? Is he now saying that he accepts that a degree of reintegration is viable, possible and desirable? In terms of this contract, is the clause just a Trojan horse for TfL? Is this an exclusive bidding procedure and for how long is the franchise intended to run?

Susan Kramer (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

I find that speech fairly fascinating because the Conservative Front-Bench team are trying to have it both ways. They want to talk in terms of much greater integration in the system and to propose that there should be barriers to integration. I also say to the hon. Member for Wimbledon that he should not be afraid. I honestly believe that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) will never be in a position to run this system.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

For the sake of clarity for the hon. Lady, I did not propose one thing or the other. I merely asked a number of questions. She should not infer any position from those questions.

Susan Kramer (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, which I find extremely curious, but let us move on. One of the most attractive features of Crossrail is its potential to integrate with London’s overall public transport provision. TfL has many flaws, but it has certainly delivered some significant improvements, notably the new London overground network.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

While the hon. Lady’s constituents may think that that has been of benefit, mine would not agree, because of the Mayor’s failure to deliver the east London line to Wimbledon.

Susan Kramer (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get the services that he seeks in the Wimbledon area in future. With the London overground, there was a pattern whereby an extremely poor service provided by Silverlink was taken back into TfL control for a holding period while it was revamped, then refranchised to a private sector operator. I see no reason why those strategies cannot be responsibly used by TfL to provide Londoners with the most appropriate and effective service. The hon. Gentleman will know that the way in which TfL’s services are provided are a complete mixture; the buses, the docklands light railway, the overground and the tube all have different kinds of arrangements.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon’s fascination with private operators is somewhat questionable, given the hideous Metronet experience that we all have been through. Private operators can play an important role, provided that integration oversight and a general pattern of regulation are in place. To suggest that it is inappropriate to introduce a clause that allows such measures to proceed for Crossrail strikes me as extraordinary. Londoners will be fascinated by the implication that the new service should be exclusively in private hands, and not part of the broader TfL family as an integrated rail service in London.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

The hon. Lady is being party political and seems to have inferred all sorts of things from what I said—I wish that I had been as clever as she suggests. I actually asked whether the bidding process was going to be exclusive to TfL, and was really asking nothing more than that.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I shall make a brief contribution to probe the Government’s thinking. I am not a great defender of the Mayor, but he has been vindicated in many ways by what has happened on the underground. To a large extent he has been a passenger—perhaps it is the wrong time to say that. The public-private partnership exercise for the London underground has unravelled, and I am afraid that that is what the Mayor had in mind at the outset when he made his complaints about the nature of the exercise. Obviously, we hope that he is in the last 22 weeks of his mayoralty, but he has made the rather important point that we should not view transport, policing or any other area only through the prism of a particular Mayor. We have to look at the powers that should be in place for London governance and at the importance of ensuring that proper services are available for all Londoners.

Lee Scott (Conservative, Ilford North)

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important things for the running of Crossrail, whether by TfL or any other body, is that it should not suffer from the same problems that affect London underground, where passengers, including my constituents—I am sure yours as well—have to travel in conditions in which it would not be legal to transport animals?

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Not mine!

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I am sure that there are plenty of people from Congleton who use the underground. My hon. Friend’s point was well made. My fears in relation to Crossrail are twofold. First, I fear that there will be a repeat of the “fares fair” problem that plagued us in the early 1980s, and many of our London constituents, if not necessarily businesses, would not regard themselves as benefiting directly from the Crossrail project. Secondly, if Crossrail is to work, and become a great success, it must have spurs well outside greater London. That is something else about which there is increasing concern. It is at the heart of the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, and I hope the Minister can respond to those concerns. The biggest fear of many residents of Kent, Essex, Berkshire, Surrey and beyond is of the Mayor taking control of their railway services because he is unaccountable through any electoral process to people who live outside greater London. The focus is on the present incumbent of the mayoralty, but this is a sensible probing amendment and it will be interesting to discover where the Minister is coming from.

I disagreed with much of what the hon. Member for Richmond Park had to say, but in Mayor Livingstone’s defence, I think that his transport policy includes some sensible integration measures. My biggest worry, especially in relation to buses, is that it is the economics of the madhouse. We are losing hundreds of millions of pounds a year on that budget, ditto for congestion charging. I accept that Livingstone had the courage to go ahead with the congestion charge, but I suspect that whether or not he is re-elected it will be difficult to row back on what has been done. We have to accept the reality of the situation.

My biggest concern is about the sheer cost of the operation but, as the hon. Lady rightly pointed out, to integrate the overground elements with the system in east London in Hoxton and Haggerston is a positive step forwards. I suspect that she views the Silverlink line with rose-tinted glasses, given that she represents Richmond in west London where the service operates rather better than it does out in the east. I have been down to Silvertown and to North Woolwich, where the service is ramshackle and requires enormous investment to make it worthwhile. The population in that part of London is relatively small, although City airport could allow North Woolwich station to become a hub and, as we discussed in relation to Crossrail, a further station on the other side of the river in Woolwich itself would integrate the entire process. That is a sensible way forward but it would impose a great cost on London council tax payers now and, I fear, in many decades to come. I hope that the Minister will give serious thought to what we have said. As part and parcel of integration we need not just one template but the potential for openness to a broad range of different operators.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

I wondered how long it would take for party politics to raise its head in this long-running debate on Crossrail and I am disappointed that it has done so in the form of an ungracious attack on the London Mayor by the hon. Gentleman. I will not ask for your indulgence, Lady Winterton, as you would probably rule me out of order if I were to suggest that the hon. Member for Henley is far too busy to spend his time on a Public Bill Committee dealing with the largest infrastructure project that London has ever seen.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Order. I suggest that the Minister does not go down that track.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

That is a very wise ruling, Lady Winterton. I do not intend to do so.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon referred to the franchise system created by the Government. I was not a Member of the 1992 to 1997 Parliament, but from my recollection a Conservative Secretary of State invented the franchise system for the purposes of running down the rail system which, however, has been rescued, modified and made fit for purpose by this Government. It is simply not the case that we invented that system. Clause 35 disapplies the prohibition in the 1993 Act on a public sector operator acting as a franchisee, which helps to provide the necessary flexibility to accommodate a public sector operator of Crossrail passenger services. I do not want to give my hon. Friends any undue hope that the Government have any plans to renationalise the rail industry by the back door, as this is a purely practical measure.

It may be useful to use public sector franchisees during the phasing-in and stabilisation period. During the stabilisation period, service levels and performance will be fully tested and optimised. Until that has been done and, for example, the required performance level is set, it would be difficult to hold a conventional franchise competition. All franchises that are put out for competition operate on the basis that the network and services are already in place. We know passenger numbers and the pathways that are available, but that will not be the case at the outset of the provision of Crossrail services. Such a competition could result in franchise bids factoring in at least some element of project risk, and that may be better managed as part of the project delivery.

Several options are open at the moment, and one was mentioned in glowing terms by the hon. Member for Wimbledon. A decision has not been taken, as a significant amount of detail will need to be worked through in the coming years between the Mayor of London, the Department for Transport and train operators as to how exactly Crossrail will be integrated with national rail services, and will interact with London Underground. As I have said before, Crossrail is a unique railway in the UK, and it is essential to retain the flexibility to deliver every possible option if we are to operate services efficiently and effectively.

Clause 36

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 21, in clause 36, page 25, line 27, at end insert—

‘( ) Before the Secretary of State exercises the power under subsection (1), he shall consult such persons likely to be affected by the exercise of the power.’.

I am sure that the Committee’s usual good humour will return after the previous, slightly more controversial debate. The clause allows for the disapplication or modification of certain franchising and access exemptions. The exemptions in question are those that remove the ORR’s task of approving or directing access contracts and those that prevent Heathrow services from being franchised. What is missing from the clause is any hint of consultation—that has been a recurring theme of my comments throughout our sittings. The Committee will notice that the Government sometimes want to reassure us that consultation will take place even though there is no such provision in the Bill. I believe that to make the Bill work and to ensure that the exercise of the exceptional powers that are being granted to the Secretary of State is transparent, consultation procedures should be included in the Bill.

As we have said several times, Crossrail is a massive undertaking. Its implications are not just physical, as they affect a complex web of agreements that characterise the railway industry. To facilitate the multiple changes required to expedite such a project, the Bill should adjust existing legislation, but the clause fails to ensure that those who will be affected by the changes are given the voice that they should be allowed prior to those changes coming into effect. My amendment gives the clause the necessary transparency and gives those who have not been given a voice the voice they should be allowed.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

Clause 36 is needed because the railway clauses in the Bill work by making use of the regulatory system for the national rail network. However, the London underground and Heathrow spur networks, which are affected by the Crossrail proposals, are exempt from that regulatory system. The clause therefore enables parts of those exemptions to be amended or revoked where necessary to facilitate Crossrail services.

The Railways (London Regional Transport) (Exemptions) Order 1994, which is relevant to the Transport for London infrastructure, provided an exemption from the outset of rail privatisation, and hence modern rail regulation. Similarly, the Railways (Heathrow Express) (Exemptions) Order 1994 provided an exemption for the Heathrow spur. The clause enables parts of those orders to be amended or revoked, which would remove the exemption from rail regulation as regards capacity allocation and franchising, for purpose of facilitating Crossrail services.

Clearly both BAA, as the owner of the Heathrow network, and Transport for London, in its role in relation to the London underground, are important players in the Crossrail project. There is no need for the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, as those parties are already involved specifically and individually in determining how best to manage complex interactions between Crossrail, the Heathrow spur and London Underground networks. Given that changes to exemptions would require a statutory instrument subject to annulment in the House, it is inconceivable that the affected parties would not be consulted before such a measure was made. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I have listened carefully to the Minister’s answer. He said initially that BAA and TfL, via the network of arrangements, were to be consulted. Will he clarify exactly what they are or whether they are the contracts that are already in place?

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

Consultation will inevitably take place in the circumstances referred to in the Bill. Essentially, the purpose of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, as he has already said, is to require the Secretary of State to consult. However, I believe that it is unnecessary.

Both parties are already closely involved in the project plan for Crossrail and are very aware of any effect on their own individual networks. BAA has petitioned against the Bill at Select Committee stage, and we are in discussions on the issues that it has raised. There are a number of interfaces in which the Crossrail team, the Cross London Rail Links Ltd, BAA and London Underground are already having the discussions that he wants to mandate in the amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I thank the Minister for answering the question that I wished to have clarified. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 37

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 22, in clause 37, page 26, line 6, at end add—

‘( ) Before the Secretary of State exercises the power under subsection (1), he shall consult the Office of Rail Regulation and such other persons as he considers appropriate.’.

Here we go again on consultation. The clause deals with closures and, in essence, commits the Secretary of State to close railway lines where he sees necessary. At least, that is my understanding of it. It gives the Secretary of State such a power by means of allowing him to direct that certain provisions of the Railways Act 2005 will not be applicable. Again, I am sure that this is an absolutely necessary step, but it must be done in the right way.

The discontinuance of a railway service, however temporary, can cause a great deal of disruption for an operator and for passengers, and I am sure that the Minister will say that adequate consultation will be carried out, but we need to be clear that it will be, so that the affected parties can also adapt as they see fit. The consultation should include, but not be restricted to, the Office of the Rail Regulator.

I am trying to ensure that the Secretary of State has the freedom to decide who else it might be appropriate to consult, but I certainly want to ensure that the powers of consultation are clear and defined in the Bill, and that passenger groups, the appropriate train operator and those who might be affected are also consulted. The amendment is perhaps slightly different in tone to the last one, but it provides for the sensible and responsible thing to do. I hope that the Minister will agree.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

I rise to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. The purpose of clause 37 is to ensure that the closure provisions of the 2005 Act do not apply when such a closure is required in connection with the construction or maintenance of the Crossrail works, or as a consequence of Crossrail passenger services. That disapplication does not apply to Crossrail services or facilities themselves. To deliver the Crossrail project, it will be essential to alter track and stations and to reorganise suburban services and much of that has the potential to be classed as closures. Even quite small changes can be classed as closures

If the Secretary of State decides whether to apply closure procedures—it is a function that she cannot delegate—the clause provides that she would consider the closure proposals by, or on behalf of, the nominated undertaker, and challenge them as necessary in reaching her decisions.

There is nothing to prevent the Secretary of State from consulting when she thinks that it would be appropriate, especially given that she would consider the proposals in the context of her duties to the national rail network, not just the Crossrail project in isolation. She might, for example, look at the extent to which the interests of others had been taken into account in the process, where possible. She might also decide that a closure merits being subject to the closure procedures in the 2005 Act with the consultation process that that entails. However, I think that she needs some flexibility to do what is appropriate in each case rather than to have a blanket requirement to consult.

This issue gets to the nub of our opposition to the amendment. What concerns me about the blanket requirement is that it risks creating false expectations of what the Secretary of State would be able to do in the light of consultations. For example, if a consultation on a small scheme resulted in arguments opposed to the closure, it would still have to go ahead to enable Crossrail passenger services to proceed. A few closures, such as of services and parts of stations are central to, and part of, the project proposals before Parliament. As I have said, the Secretary of State would be duty bound to consider those in the wider context of the UK railways.

Finally, the finer details of closure requirements are likely to emerge in the detail design process. Network Rail is likely to undertake most of the network works and will play a major part in the detail design process. It will be in Network Rail’s interest to ensure that the wider interests of the network and its other users are taken fully into account from the outset. I hope, perhaps in vain, that following this explanation, the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Again, I listened carefully to the Minister, and again, I could not understand a lot of what he said. Even after consultation, it may be necessary to close certain things, even if the people who are consulted disagree with that. That is in the nature of consultation. I do not see how the amendment, other than in the very clearest way, is a major imposition on the Secretary of State. It does not say that they must consult with any or every person as would wish to be consulted with. It refers to

“and such other persons as he considers appropriate.”

The Minister has said that it is inconceivable that the Secretary of State would not consult such people. Why, therefore, does he not wish to see that in the Bill? I find this extraordinary. We have accepted all the way through that this is an exceptional project requiring exceptional powers and exceptional discretion, but when we can put in the Bill a definition of those powers, it would seem appropriate to do so. I am not sure that the he has reassured me on why he wants the amendment to fall.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

As I said in my original remarks, I am happy to expand on them. Under the 2005 Act, a closure has a wide definition. If part of a platform on a station had to be closed, I would see no benefit in triggering a consultation process on such a very small closure. The effect of the amendment would be that such a process would have to commence on every single closure as defined by the 2005 Act.

I accept that in most peoples’ minds, a closure means that of a railway station or a line. I accept that that is a concern. With regard to the wider responsibility for the rail network, it is frankly inconceivable that any Secretary of State would not consult on a major closure. However, the amendment would end up defining very many restrictions and very small closures as closures and would trigger a consultation system that would not be warranted in many cases.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I listened to the Minister, but that is not entirely what the amendment says. It refers to

“and such other persons as he considers appropriate.”

If, under the 2005 Act, it was a minor closure, in those circumstances it would not be appropriate to consult with everybody. The amendment gives the Secretary of State exactly the flexibility that the Minister requires. I am tempted to withdraw the amendment, but at this stage I would like to test the will of the Committee, if for no other reason then to ensure that we are all awake.

Clause 40

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 23, in clause 40, page 27, line 2, at end insert

‘, but is an asset which enables the construction, maintenance and operation of Crossrail to occur.’.

In the same vein as many clauses in the Bill, clause 40 contains provisions to ensure that those charged with the building and operating of the Crossrail network are afforded all possible assistance by those who own and operate existing rail assets. Specifically, it gives the nominated undertaker the power to require facilities owners and operators to co-operate with them by force of an agreement. The explanatory notes state that Crossrail will, by necessity,

“interact with the existing railways”,

so it is certainly obvious that, as set out in the clause, there is a need for this provision. My intention in tabling the amendment is to ensure that there is absolutely no scope for doubt as to which of those assets we are talking about. I do not wish to return to the alcoholic allusions that we went through last Thursday—I think we have probably done that one to death. My concerns in this case, however, are similar. As the clause stands, it seems that the nominated undertaker can take action with regard to any railway asset anywhere. Although I am sure that the Minister is about to reassure us that the nominated undertaker will not use that power haphazardly or unsystematically, I cannot see any reason why we cannot specify on the face of the Bill that the assets that require the exceptional powers must be those that relate to Crossrail. Otherwise, there is scope for ambiguity. I believe that the amendment is rational and that the Bill would benefit from its inclusion.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

Crossrail will clearly interact a great deal with other railway assets both before and after it is built. For example, in the central area new Crossrail tunnels and stations will be constructed in and around existing underground stations and running tunnels and there will be more than £2 billion of Crossrail investment on the national rail network. Generally, the preferred option will be for whoever is appointed as the Crossrail nominated undertaker to address interface issues with owners of other railway assets on the basis of standard industry mechanisms. Clause 40 is, therefore, a provision that we should not need to rely on often.

However, the existing arrangements that govern both the national rail and London underground networks—that is where the interfaces will mostly come from—might not address all the issues that could arise in relation to a major new project such as Crossrail. It is therefore prudent to have the ability to resolve them.

It is important to point out that the clause works both ways: the controller of a non-Crossrail railway asset can also invoke the provision and require the nominated undertaker to agree how a matter is to be resolved. The object is to ensure that neither the nominated undertaker nor the other party can act unreasonably in dealing with a problem related to the interaction of the Crossrail works with overland or underground railway assets.

The amendment presents two problems. First, it would limit the nominated undertaker to using the power only where the non-Crossrail asset was one that enabled the construction, maintenance or operation of Crossrail to occur. In fact, problems could arise in relation to a wide range of railway assets, not just the subset.

The clause already requires the nominated undertaker to meet the test that the matter at issue must be one that affects the construction, maintenance or operation of Crossrail. We believe that that is the appropriate qualification, rather than the stricter test that the amendment would set.

The second problem is that the limitation that the amendment would impose would not apply in respect of subsection (2), so the provision would be unfairly weighted in favour of the non-Crossrail party. I do not imagine that that is the intention, but it would be the effect.

My key point is that the creation of Crossrail, for which I detect considerable support in the Committee, should not be impeded because an interface issue with another railway network cannot be resolved. Nor should Crossrail cause unnecessary problems for other railway networks without there being a means of resolution. The clause is an essential back-up provision that recognises the fact that integrating a new railway on the scale of Crossrail is difficult but should never be impossible.

I hope that that is explanation enough to persuade the hon. Member for Wimbledon to withdraw his amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

It is indeed a very full explanation. Certainly, I would not want the unintended consequence of subsection (2) not falling within the limitation, and that is a considerable demerit in my drafting of the amendment. The Minister mentioned the circumstances regarding the asset where those powers would be required. Can he give us an example of where it would not be an asset that enabled the construction, maintenance and operation of Crossrail?

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

One example that springs to mind would be where a Crossrail tunnel was being built very close to, or perhaps underneath, an existing London underground line. Although that particular line would not be defined in the terms of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, it would nevertheless be necessary to come to some agreement with London Underground to allow the unimpeded progress of the construction to take place.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

That was an interesting explanation. I would have thought that that was exactly the asset that would enable the construction of Crossrail. None the less, I take it that the Minister is trying to be helpful and I accept that my amendment would have an unintended consequence as it relates to subsection (2), which is my drafting error. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 41

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 24, in clause 41, page 27, line 33, leave out ‘results’ and insert ‘objectives’.

I accept that the amendment might be described as an exercise in terminology and semantics. Arbitration has come up a number of times in our discussions and we now come to two clauses that set out how it will work in practice, as it relates to the duty to co-operate. When I first read clause 41(1), I was slightly taken aback. Arbitration is, by definition, a process by which a third party settles a dispute between two persons or organisations. The implication of the subsection, however, is that the Secretary of State can directly arbiter as to the outcome of an arbitration in which one party is the nominated undertaker.

As we know, the nominated undertaker could be an appointee of the Secretary of State and could even be the Secretary of State herself. I would like to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt and assume that that was not the intention in drafting the subsection. After all, we do not want the defendant to be able to tell the jury and the judge exactly what to do.

In my exercise in terminology, I suggest a wording that would remove the doubt. Replacing “results” with “objectives” would make it clear that the Secretary of State could have a say in what form the outcome of the arbitration should take, but not in what the decision was. I ask the Minister to consider those points. Perhaps he will look favourably on the amendment.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

Perhaps we should rename the amendment the “number of angels dancing on the head of a pin amendment”. To set these matters in context, the clause sets out the mechanism for disputes under clause 40(3) to be settled by arbitration. The general provisions on arbitration are continued in clause 62. Subsection (3), which the amendment would affect, allows the Secretary of State to direct the arbitrator as to the overall results to be achieved by the settlement. That is to avoid the possibility that the outcome or result of the arbitration might prevent something that is critical to the Crossrail project.

I bear in mind the criticisms that the hon. Gentleman has made on this and previous clauses. Even if he has reservations, I hope he understands that the results of an arbitration cannot allow the construction of Crossrail to be impeded in any way. That is the only caveat that the Secretary of State will have in mind when making those directions. The arbitrator will have full control over the terms, including as to compensation of the arbitration award, subject to the rule that it must achieve certain practical results.

The direction of the Secretary of State will generally be only to facilitate the completion of the Crossrail works within the agreed time scale or cost, or to do with the subsequent maintenance of the all-important services that Crossrail will deliver. Even then, the Secretary of State will ensure that Crossrail is not delivered to the unreasonable detriment of the rest of the rail network.

The amendment’s use of objectives in subsection (3) is the angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin section. In terms of legal semantics, it would ultimately miscast what is happening. In making a direction, the Secretary of State has an objective concerning the construction, maintenance or operation of Crossrail. In acting further to the direction, the arbitrator will retain his original objective—the fair resolution of a dispute—within any parameters established by the direction.

To offer some further reassurance to the hon. Gentleman, as with clause 40, this is likely to be a fall-back power in practice. First, there is the general reassurance for the rail industry of the Department’s intention to work within normal industry processes as far as possible in connection with the Crossrail project. Secondly, it is envisaged that many of the works will be undertaken by railway operators that have a direct interest in integrating Crossrail works successfully with their own existing assets. Finally, some agreements are already in place regarding those matters. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I hear the Minister’s reassurance that he expects this to be primarily a fall-back power. That does not necessarily mean that we should allow fall-back powers to have a lower test than we apply to other things. None the less, I hear that he thinks that we are dancing on a pin head.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

Not you personally.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

If only I could. I fully understand the objectives. However, the word “results” has an implication of trying to affect the arbitration and prejudge it. I have listened to the Minister and am happy with his reassurance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 43

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 25, in clause 43, page 29, line 1, leave out subsection (2).

This is very much a probing amendment. Clause 43 is necessary and, as I am sure the Minister will point out, it repeats almost word for word what is in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996. However, just because there is a precedent does not mean that we should not examine the powers or redefine them.

The clause refers to the transfer of statutory powers and duties relating to works on land acquired by the Secretary of State for the purposes of Crossrail. It makes perfect sense that if the Secretary of State acquires such land he should also acquire any related statutory powers. I want to probe the Minister about exactly what subsection (2) adds to that process. It provides for

“the further transfer...of a power or duty transferred under subsection (1) or this subsection.”

Can he explain exactly what that is intended to mean in practice and what are the further transfers that he anticipates he needs the power to cover? In the spirit of this probing amendment, I hope that he can clarify that matter for me.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

Again, to set the amendment in context, when the Secretary of State acquires from a railway operator land on which there are works that have been authorised by a previous statute, clause 43 allows for the transfer to the Secretary of State or the nominated undertaker any statutory powers or duties relating to those works and previously exercisable by the railway operator. The clause, oddly enough, is precedented in the 1996 Act—a fact of which I would not be so dismissive as the hon. Gentleman is tempted to be.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

There is great danger that we get bad drafting if we allow too much legislation simply to consider precedent. I say that as someone who practised briefly as a solicitor in the early 1990s. Whenever a novel problem arose there was a temptation to ask, “Where’s the precedent?” We are joking about this to a certain extent, and I accept that there are similarities between the two pieces of legislation that make it logical at least to keep an eye on how the clauses are drafted.

There is an issue to consider about parliamentary drafting if the draftsman’s first instinct is, “Let’s look at the precedent and see how we can mess around with it,” when thelegislation is 11 years old. That is not a terribly sensible approach. Our approach should be to ask what we are trying to achieve to ensure that this is robust legislation for decades to come. We should not simply justify it by looking at precedent. It might be easy to draft and slightly easier for the Minister to justify certain clauses, but we need to look much more sensibly at what the Bill is trying to achieve.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It would not be appropriate or justifiable simply to say that because the clause has a precedent that alone justifies its existence in subsequent legislation, which is why I want to explain why we wish to follow that precedent.

The 1996 Act is the closest legislative comparison we have to the Crossrail project. It was a hybrid Bill that introduced a multi-billion pound infrastructure project that was, at the time, the largest civil engineering project in Europe, as Crossrail will be when it is under construction. It is therefore justifiable to consider the precedent of the 1996 Act. It was robust legislation that, crucially, worked, which is what we want the Bill to do. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that precedent alone is not justification.

Subsection (2) allows the Secretary of State further to transfer to herself or a nominated undertaker any of the powers or duties previously transferred from a railway operator. If subsection (2) were deleted, as proposed by the amendment, those powers or duties, after being transferred, could not be transferred again. That would adversely affect cases in which the same land was needed for works by different nominated undertakers, which is entirely possible—I would say likely—especially in relation to construction sites.

The result would be that when the first nominated undertaker handed back land so that the second nominated undertaker could undertake his work, the Secretary of State would not be able to ensure that the powers and duties of the original railway operator transferred with the land. That would be an unsatisfactory outcome, to say the least. It would not be in the interests of the continued proper management of the railway. I hope that that is explanation enough for the hon. Member for Wimbledon.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Indeed, it is. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 46

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 1—Transfer schemes: tax provisions.

Government new schedule 1—Transfer schemes: tax provisions.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

Clause 46 brings into effect schedule 12, which in turn sets out the power of the Secretary of State to make schemes to transfer property, rights and liabilities. At this point would it be appropriate to move straight on to Government new clause 1, Lady Winterton?

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Yes, all three measures are being considered together.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

The new clause will give effect to a new schedule relating to the tax treatment concerning statutory transfer schemes. New schedule 1 makes provision relating to tax consequences that could otherwise arise in relation to the transfers of property, rights and liabilities under transfer schemes made under schedule 12. Broadly, it ensures that inappropriate tax charges and reliefs are not triggered as a result of a transfer scheme and provides continuity of tax treatment where appropriate.

At a level of principle therefore, an understanding of schedule 12 is—it says in my briefing—quite straightforward. It is intended to cater for the various scenarios concerning the transfer of assets and liabilities in the context of construction and delivery of Crossrail. It is right to draw Members’ attention to the fact that because Crossrail will not be completed for a number of years, we are looking to take a power by statutory instrument to make further modifications to the tax treatment of transfer schemes.

We consider that that is necessary in order to deal with the inevitable but unforeseeable future adaptation of the tax system. Expressed at a level of principle, the schedule is straightforward, but the detail is somewhat technical and I do not propose to go into it in great depth. I hope that what I have said today and the explanation in my letter of 19 November 2007, which is available in the Committee Room, will persuade hon. Members to give these measures their support.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I am grateful to the Minister for that opening to this short debate. While schedule 12 may well be quite straightforward in principle, those of us who are not of the profession that he so likes found some of the detail quite impenetrable at times.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Order. The hon. Gentleman referred to schedule 12. We are dealing with new schedule 1.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I stand corrected and I thank you for that.

Jeremy Wright (Conservative, Rugby and Kenilworth)

Even the title is impenetrable.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

My hon. Friend is quite right. The detail is difficult and technical and it is has been difficult for some of us to explore it properly. We are grateful to the Minister for his letter of 19 November. There is just one thing on which I would like him to give us a little more detail. He used the phrases “inappropriate tax charges and reliefs” and “inappropriate tax consequences” several times, but could he clarify what he means by inappropriate and give us one or two examples of what is inappropriate? If inspiration does not arrive in the normal way, I will be happy for him to concede that he might need to write to me to define that term.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

I would be more than happy to dazzle the hon. Gentleman with the details that he asked for, but I will save the Committee some time and simply write to him with them and with some of the examples that he asked for. I hope that that will satisfy him.

Schedule 12

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 53, in schedule 12, page 196, line 40, leave out ‘any person, including the Secretary of State’ and insert

‘either the Secretary of State or the nominated undertaker’.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 54, in schedule 12, page 197, line 13, leave out ‘any person, including the Secretary of State’ and insert

‘either the Secretary of State or the nominated undertaker’.

No. 55, in schedule 12, page 197, line 22, leave out ‘any person’ and insert ‘the nominated undertaker’.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

The three amendments are identical in purpose. They relate to schedule 12, which relates, as the Minister has just said, to the transfer of property rights and liabilities from one party to another. Their purpose is to ensure that the transfer is made to an appropriate party.

It is not necessary for the Secretary of State to make a transfer scheme for anyone other than herself or the nominated undertaker. Throughout the Bill, we have given those two people various rights and powers, but the schedule appears unduly to extend that principle. I therefore look forward to the Minister explaining the circumstances in which he envisages property rights or liabilities will need to be transferred to someone other than the Secretary of State or the nominated undertaker for the purposes of the schedule.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

Schedule 12 sets out the Secretary of State’s powers to make schemes for the transfer of property rights and liabilities—known as transfer schemes—from himself or certain other bodies to any person, including the Secretary of State. If approved, the amendments would remove the Secretary of State’s right to make a scheme for the transfer of property rights and liabilities from himself to any person, including the Secretary of State, and instead limit his powers of transfer to

“either the Secretary of State or the nominated undertaker”.

If approved, the amendments would remove the Secretary of State’s right to make a scheme for the purposes connected with Crossrail for the transfer of property rights and liabilities from the Greater London authority, TfL, the London Development Agency and their subsidiaries to any person, including the Secretary of State, and instead constrain the Secretary of State’s powers of transfer to

“either the Secretary of State or the nominated undertaker”.

Finally, amendment No. 55 would, if approved, remove the Secretary of State’s right to make a scheme for the purposes connected with Crossrail for the transfer of property rights and liabilities from the Secretary of State or a company wholly owned by him to any person, and instead limit the Secretary of State’s powers of transfer to the nominated undertaker.

Taking the amendments collectively, the hon. Gentleman’s overall intention appears to be to restrict the Secretary of State’s powers to transfer property rights and liabilities from himself to any person, which would not make much sense at this stage of the project. The project is at a stage where the final ownership structure has not yet been decided, so it is too early to say with absolute certainty who all the players might be. It must therefore make sense to allow flexibility in the making of transfer schemes to cater for all eventualities, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I understand the Minister’s clear explanation, but I was seeking some examples of where these powers will be necessary. I fully understand his desire not to limit flexibility, but we none the less need an example of where the Secretary of State might feel that these powers are necessary.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

Network Rail, for example, might be subject to a transfer of property to it from the Secretary of State in respect of assets at a tunnel interface.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I am grateful for that. After that example and the Minister’s full explanation I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 47

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 56, in clause 47, page 30, line 10, at end add

‘, relevant London borough council leaders and chief executives, and those officials with the same standing in relevant borough councils and unitary authorities outside of London.’.

Clause 47 is important. It relates to the appointment of the nominated undertaker, the body that is to assume the task of building Crossrail. Subsection (4) requires the Secretary of State to consult the Mayor of London. Does the Minister think that it would be prudent to consult not only the Mayor of London, whoever that might be, but leaders of local authorities? The Secretary of State should look beyond consultation just with the Mayor of London, and should be required to consult representatives of local government when making the decision. After all, Crossrail is certain to have ramifications in several London boroughs in areas both east and west of the City.

Local councils will have to deal with several issues arising as a direct result of Crossrail, and I sense that they may be better minded to co-operate if they feel that they have been included in decision-making processes relating to the project from the outset. I have no doubt that some of the boroughs in question have already made representations to the Select Committees, and I am sure that those representations were taken very seriously. None the less, the amendment is non-controversial. Local government has a role to play in the success of the project. It would be a mistake to exclude it from the Bill.

My amendment is designed to ensure that the appropriate local government representatives—the amendment specifies them as the borough council leaders and chief executives, and officials of the same standing in borough councils outside Greater London—would be consulted on the appointment of the nominated undertaker, who will, after all, become such a presence in their area. I hope that the Minister will feel minded to accept the amendment.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

Clause 47 empowers the Secretary of State to specify by order one or more nominated undertakers, for the purposes of the Bill. The clause requires the Secretary of State, before making such a nomination order, to consult the Mayor of London—who will, I am sure, be Ken Livingstone. It also allows the Secretary of State, by agreement with the Mayor of London and whoever it is proposed to name in the nomination order, to fetter his discretion as to the exercise of the power granted in subsection (1). That power is necessary to enable the Secretary of State to make contractual arrangements prior to the nomination of a person or body as the nominated undertaker.

The amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult leaders and chief executives of local authorities along the route before making a nomination order and before entering into agreements with the proposed nominated undertaker. The crucial part of my opposition to the amendment is that clause 47 requires the Secretary of State to consult the Mayor before taking either of the actions specified. As the hon. Member for Wimbledon knows, the Mayor is co-sponsor of Crossrail; that is why he is given the relevant power. It is intended that the Mayor will be responsible for delivering the project through Cross London Rail Links Ltd. I expect to say more about how it is intended to manage the project when the relevant amendments are considered.

For the purpose of the current debate the simple point is that it is right that the Mayor, as co-sponsor of Crossrail, should be consulted when the Secretary of State contemplates making a nomination order or entering into an agreement with any nominated undertaker. The chief executives to whom the amendment refers are not co-sponsors of Crossrail, and it would not be appropriate for there to be an obligation to consult local authorities along the route about the matters before us. There will be a good deal of discussion and consultation with key stakeholders, such as local authorities, because they will have a key role to play in the detailed delivery of the project, but it does not seem appropriate at this stage to consult them about the identity of a nominated undertaker or the terms under which a nominated undertaker will be commissioned to carry out the work. Such matters are properly for the project’s sponsors, so I trust that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I have listened to the Minister’s explanation, although I certainly do not share his certainty about who will be Mayor of London at any given time—indeed, he and I are completely at variance on that point.

I recognise the fact that the Mayor is the co-sponsor, but local government needs to be a key stakeholder, and the Minister has said that it will be involved in the consultation process. I therefore fail to understand the Government’s reluctance to refer in the Bill to the fact that they will consult key stakeholders. Although I am happy to take the Minister’s reassurance on that, we do not know whether we will have a different Minister, a different Mayor and a different view at some stage, so it is odd that the Government will not include any reassurance in the Bill.

It is disappointing that the Minister will not accept a number of our points about consultation, but given that the amendment deals with the co-sponsors and the nominated undertaker, I am prepared to ask the Committee’s leave to withdraw it. However, I will table several other amendments about consultation to test the will of the Committee. However, with your permission, Lady Winterton, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Susan Kramer (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in clause 47, page 30, line 20, at end insert—

‘( ) An order made under subsection (1) shall set out all information that the Secretary of State considers necessary relating to—

(a) the sources of funding for the relevant provisions of this Act, and

(b) the uses to which it is proposed that funding should be put.’.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in clause 47, page 30, line 22, at end insert—

‘( ) An order under subsection (1) shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’.

Susan Kramer (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 obviously go together and are designed to ensure that Parliament would not have to sign a blank cheque. The issue has been tackled to an extent, given the Government’s willingness yesterday to put the heads of terms in the House of Commons Library in both summary and slightly more expanded form. There is some editing, which is always frustrating, to protect commercial confidentiality, but we are assured that it has been kept to a minimum.

There is also a letter from the Mayor outlining how he intends to proceed with the element of finance that is the responsibility of London. That is a significant improvement on the situation that we faced when the Bill was first presented and we first tabled our amendments. However, I am still left with a number of questions for the Minister.

First, as the Minister will be aware from looking at the heads of terms, they in no way represent a legally binding obligation, and no such obligations will be entered into until after the legislation receives Royal Assent. Will he therefore let us know how he intends to keep the House informed of the final bill, so that we are not constantly having to sign a blank cheque? Will he also let us know whether there is any mechanism he would accept that allowed the House to express its verdict once the final structure for financing Crossrail and its related obligations was agreed?

As the Minister will be aware, it is often in the final months of negotiation that a deal, and particularly its financing, loses any relationship to the structure that was previously discussed. As the various financial institutions become involved, suddenly the fundamental nature of risk allocation and of who is to pay what and where essentially changes. Therefore, what mechanism does he think would allow the House some appropriate understanding, which would not be possible prior to Royal Assent, according to the timetable before us?

Secondly, will the Minister help us on some understanding of a key element that seems barely to be discussed within the heads of terms? The heads of terms lay out various sources of financing, coming up to the total of £15.9 billion. The uses of funds is a one-line item only, and I understand why the Minister has presented only a one-line item for that. He presumably wishes to protect from general public knowledge the size of the contingency that is built into the uses of funds. That is sometimes a rational thing to do, because the various bidders on the contract, if they were to know the size of the contingency, would be likely to raise their prices to absorb it. He will be aware that the rumour mill, which is very active within this particular industry, has suggested that that contingency is an exceedingly large figure.

We always talk about projects coming in on budget and suggest that that is a good thing, but when there is a large contingency, one would expect a project to come in under budget. Having looked at the heads of terms, I am not clear who is the beneficiary of any such savings and underspend. There is only a one-line reference in those documents.

I looked at the heads of terms that are presented as part of the sources and uses statement that I requested in relation to the amendment. With regard to the timing within which funds are applied from the various sources, it shows that the funds for the two last years, 2016 and 2017, are underwritten by TfL and the Greater London authority, which makes one suppose—correctly, I hope—that at least the first element of the contingency will be clawed back to TfL and the GLA, although I do not think that that is made clear anywhere in the document.

If the contingency were to be, for example, almost the same size as the Department’s contribution, it would be important to know whether the Department anticipated reclaiming all its contribution, leaving the project to be funded solely by Londoners, through either the fare box and TfL or the supplementary business rate. We need clarification on who is to be the beneficiary of those savings and who, in a sense, is carrying that element of the risk.

I make a strong plea that London fare payers should be the first to benefit from any underspend and the London business community should be the second, rather than the taxpayer being first out. That clarification and an expansion on the outline sources and uses that have been provided would be extremely helpful.

On overspend, which is obviously an ongoing worry and a reason for having an accurate sources and uses statement, I am somewhat confused by the details that have been laid out under the heads of terms. That might be in part because I have not had long to work my way through the document. However, there seem to be two intervention prices. Will the Minister at least provide us with clarity as to whether those fall under the total £15.9 billion? In other words, when a hard line is more appropriate and is non-contingency related, what uses number is developed? Do those cover the ground between that and the £15.9 billion, or are they in excess of it?

Indeed, within the document there is a description of a put option that is to be debt free. That is the ability of TfL ultimately to put the project back to the Department. Does that mean that, under these proposals, Londoners will be left carrying a substantial debt? They will lose control of the asset and any revenues generated by it if it is passed back to the Government. If that is a risk that Londoners are taking, it ought to be explicit.

The sources of fund statement indicates that section 106 money will be applied back into the project. Surely London’s many boroughs have the right to expect that section 106 money will be available to them to deal with the offsetting of the many problems that the construction of Crossrail will cause them. Will the Minister take us through the logic of allowing that money to be funded back into the project itself, rather than dealing with the mitigation of the impact on the affected communities?

The supplementary business rates are to be set, according to the Mayor’s letter, on any property that is in excess of £50,000 of rateable value. Will the Minister give his estimate of how many businesses will be affected? The media speculation that it will be between 100 and 150 businesses sounds rather peculiar, but considering something of that size certainly changes the character of the deal, compared to something that extends to many more companies across London.

There seems to be real confusion over what will happen with the retail industry. It is unclear how various retail branches will be treated—whether collectively or separately.

TfL is expected to produce some of its early contributions under a sources and uses statement from prudential borrowing. I am unclear whether that is expected to absorb all TfL’s prudential borrowing capacity. While TfL has used prudential borrowing on only a limited basis, it has been an essential part of a wide range of new projects that have been brought on stream. The East London line, Thameslink and a series of other projects will come into play in roughly the same period, so I am concerned to understand what the implications are if all the prudential borrowing is absorbed within the Crossrail project.

Lastly, within the heads of terms, despite the fact that they have been mentioned over and over again, there is not one single word dealing with the issue of freight and freight access. It seems extraordinary that those matters are not even included in the contractual regime proposed by these various documents. Is the Minister willing to address that issue?

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I should first salute the hon. Lady for her great optimism that somehow this project will not have a great cost overrun. All experience suggests that a budget of £16 billion is likely to be exceeded, not least because we were discussing only £10 billion to £13 billion three or four years ago when debate on Crossrail became more common in the House.

I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Lady’s view that it should be the fare box that gets first advantage of any underspend. The London council tax payer should get first advantage. Some people who are likely to use Crossrail will come from outside London and from abroad, but a significant number of Londoners will also do so. A large number of infrastructure projects are in part being funded by London council tax. In my own city of Westminster, this year, for the first time, more than half the council tax that any resident pays is now down to the mayoral precept. One can only imagine that, having underwritten the Olympic games and elements of this project, that statistic will become worse still.

A Mayor who does not empty a single refuse bin, sweep a single street or run a single school or social services department will none the less take an enormous proportion of the council tax spend from Westminster residents. I appreciate that the same will increasingly apply to other parts of London.

There is a difficulty with what the hon. Lady said about section 106 agreements. I agree with her that much of the money should be used to mitigate the localised loss of amenity because of disruption, but the reality is that the parcel was lost during previous debates on Crossrail and on the Greater London Authority Bill. It is clear that the Mayor is keen to have a central pot of section 106 moneys to utilise for purposes other than local mitigation, so I have some concerns along the line that the hon. Lady put forward. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say, but I make a strong plea for the London council tax payer. If the project comes in within budget and money is to be given back, he or she should be first and foremost, rather than giving it back through the fare box.

Indeed, the business community is also involved in a fairly unprecedented way—Canary Wharf with £400 million, and the City of London with £250 million and rising because of other connections—but I suspect that that will become much more common for large-scale infrastructure projects in the decades ahead. The business community will be rather concerned, and it may become much more difficult to include it in future projects, if there is to be a massive underspend when there has been a reliance on its money.

I suspect that this is probably wishful thinking, given the likely situation in respect of expenditure on this project, but I hope that I am wrong on that. It is important that the London council tax payer, who is much beleaguered by contributions to a range of national projects, should be the first beneficiary of any underspend.

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

I am beginning to get the impression that there is a general view that the project is purely about London, but of course it is not. It impacts sizeably on the rest of our community in many ways, but I fear that that is not taken into account in the amendment. The people of Northampton and Northamptonshire generally are concerned about Crossrail because it does not help their transport problems one iota, yet it will cost them, through the Exchequer, a considerable amount of money. The whole question of transparency in respect of Crossrail is vital not only to London but to the rest of the country, which will be affected by it but which will not get quite the benefits that many Londoners hope it will bring.

Let us talk about transparency, particularly in respect of money. It seems that the scheme has gone from £6 billion to £16 billion in two short years. The costs need to be totally transparent but have not been in the past. We do not understand why that massive leap has taken place. I have seen some of the ways that Crossrail has been costed, and, frankly, as a business man, I have been horrified. The question of Woolwich station itself was enough to frighten the taxpayer to death. It went from £350 million down to about £120 million. I know that that is not for the whole station, but the methods applied to costing were most disturbing.

Let us talk about another aspect that will affect the rest of the country: why we need transparency and why I do not think that the amendment covers that need. I am concerned, as are many of my constituents, about the amount of money that London is taking for infrastructure projects. The Olympics will take a great deal of money, Crossrail is £16 billion and Heathrow will take a lot of money, too. Such projects draw resources from other parts of the country. They will certainly affect the ability to provide massive civil engineering infrastructure projects. I need to know how they will impact on other areas, particularly those that have sustainable community projects. They, too, have an immensely sizeable claim for infrastructure. Transparency is vital.

We talk about underspend. Quite frankly, I think that the rest of the country has a right to question the probability of overspend on Government projects. Indeed, it has been suggested to me that we could—I emphasise “could”—end up with a £25 billion or £30 billion project on our hands. We have seen many Government projects increase threefold in cost, so the record is not very good, and we need reassurance. Transparency is the only way to achieve that, and it is needed not only in relation to existing figures—we need ongoing reports too. The amendment does not address that need.

I am immensely concerned about the impact on the rest of the country, so I want the Minister to tell us how we can be fair and transparent for the nation in terms of costing, focus and the drawing of resources by Crossrail from other projects that are worthy, that are needed elsewhere in the country, and that might be affected by Crossrail or other projects in and around London. How will the Minister reassure us in that respect?

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

I appreciate the opportunity to take part in a wide-ranging debate on financing, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park, who in the carry-over debate was clearly disappointed when I mentioned that Crossrail finance would not be included in the Bill. She has contrived a fairly ingenious method of ensuring that the Committee has an opportunity to discuss financing arrangements.

I shall preface my remarks by pointing out that, given some of the problems that the hon. Lady has identified, there are certain areas of the financing agreement that will not be debated in detail in Committee. However, I can assure her that the Government are committed to complete transparency on funding arrangements. An example of that was the lodging of the heads of terms in the Library yesterday.

In the carry-over debate on 23 October, I made an offer to the hon. Member for Wimbledon, and to the hon. Lady’s hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, to give them an off-the-record Chatham House rule briefing. They took up that offer, which has been helpful to the Committee’s deliberations. If I cannot give detailed answers to certain of her questions, I hope that she will nevertheless accept that the Government are committed to transparency. I understand and accept the concerns that exist, particularly in the wider financial community.

The work that has been done on assessing the final true cost of Crossrail has resulted in a more robust position than in almost any other major civil engineering project of this type. I take issue with the suggestion by the hon. Member for Northampton, South that the estimated cost of Crossrail had risen from £6 billion to £16 billion in two years—I think the record will show that that is what he said. On the Bill’s Second Reading in 2005, the then Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South-West (Mr. Darling) pointed out that, at 2002 prices, the cost of Crossrail would be £10 billion, which equates almost exactly, I believe, with a cash amount of £15 billion to £16 billion in today’s terms by the end of the project.

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

The Minister will understand that many figures have been bandied about in the past three or four years in relation to Crossrail, including in the Select Committee on which we worked. I do not doubt his word, but it is good at last to have some clearer idea of what will happen. Does he accept that there has been confusion in the past and that that is why transparency is needed in future?

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

I do not accept that there has been confusion in Government or with Cross London Rail Links. I accept that confusion has many avenues and many sources, but I do not think that the Government are responsible for all of it. On Second Reading, the estimated cost was £10.2 billion. Out-turn cost by the end of Crossrail construction is estimated to be between £15 billion and £16 billion.

That leads me on to another point made by the hon. Member for Northampton, South. He started off, quite rightly, by pointing out that Crossrail is a project of national significance; it is not just a London project, but one that will have significant value for the rest of the United Kingdom, and I agreed with him. He then went on to complain about the cost of Crossrail having an impact on infrastructure projects in the rest of the country. Frankly, you cannot have it both ways. It is a national project that is being paid for, in part, by taxpayers throughout the United Kingdom, which is correct because it is a project of UK significance.

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

I did not complain. I said that there was a fear that it could draw from other national projects and that that created a need for transparency. Does the Minister accept that that is the case?

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

I accept that the hon. Gentleman is frightened, but I assure him that there is no need to be. The very fact of Crossrail’s construction and operation will, it is estimated, add £20 billion to the GDP of the whole country. So, as well as being an important infrastructure project for London—the benefits to London will be obvious—it will have a knock-on benefit for the rest of the United Kingdom economy.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster expressed some concern about the effect on council-tax payers in London and hoped that any underspend would directly benefit them. I am more than happy to stand corrected, but I understand that council tax is not intended as a source of funding for Crossrail; domestic council tax will not be top-sliced in order to pay for any part of the project. So, he can reassure his constituents, unless, of course, they own a business with a rateable value of over £50,000, which many of them will, I am sure. But council tax is not intended to be a source of funding.

The purpose of the first amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park is to require the provision of information about how the project will be funded. Of course, as I have said, I am happy to support the case for transparency, but not through the means suggested. The Government’s approach to transparency was demonstrated yesterday when we published the heads of terms that have been agreed by the Secretary of State for Transport and Transport for London. Some details, as the hon. Lady has already said, have had to be redacted to protect commercial confidentiality, but the key terms of the deal between the co-sponsors of the project are now in the public domain.

We and Transport for London now need to progress the detailed arrangements that would support the heads of terms. That will include a large number of documents which we expect will take several months to finalise. Our presumption is that those documents will be made public, again, subject suitably to protecting commercial interests. On that basis, it would seem nugatory to require in the Bill for a nomination order to contain information that will be set out elsewhere and in more detail. Although, as I have said, I pay tribute to the ingenuity that the hon. Lady has exercised in securing a debate on finance in the Committee.

A nomination order is not, in any case, an appropriate place to provide the sort of detailed contractual information that the hon. Lady wishes to see. Furthermore, a practical point is that there may be more than one nomination order and, if that were the case, the supporting financial information relating to any one nomination order would tell us only part of the whole story. That would confuse and, even, frighten, rather than enlighten.

The other feature of the hon. Lady’s amendment is that any nomination order, by implication, the additional financial information that she is arguing should be included, should be subject to a positive decision of Parliament. The degree of parliamentary scrutiny afforded to secondary legislation is, quite rightly, of great interest to hon. Members. I would simply point out that our predecessors saw fit to accept that nomination orders made under the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 should be subject to the negative resolution procedure, and that is what we have provided for in the Bill. I believe that that is a reasonable approach.

Committee members understandably wish to know how the project is to be funded and managed. I would emphasise that we have started to provide that information already by publishing the heads of terms; we intend to make more information available in due course. Indeed, the heads of terms explicitly state that information about the project should be provided in order to provide a higher level of transparency about the project. That is key to securing widespread support for the project.

The hon. Lady’s amendments are designed to produce the same answer but, as I have sought to explain, her suggested approach would not deliver the transparency that she wants. I therefore ask her, and ask her nicely, to withdraw her amendments.

Susan Kramer (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

The Minister is exactly right to say that my objective is to secure transparency. I believe that, because of the size and significance of the project, transparency is absolutely necessary if it is to have support and respect, both of which are critical. I take the Minister’s decision to release the heads of terms yesterday as a very important—I was going to use the word “gesture”, but it is probably a little stronger than that—evidence of willingness to provide information in a detailed and relevant way. I am grateful for that. The other assurance that he provided, which is that such information will be available on an ongoing basis—I hope that that will be with the clarity established in the first document—gives me a great deal of comfort. I am glad that we managed to find a mechanism to ensure that this discussion was part of the ongoing process of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Schedule 13

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 57, in schedule 13, page 206, line 25, leave out sub-paragraph (3).

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 58, in schedule 13, page 206, line 29, leave out ‘or (3)’.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Schedule 13 is an important part of the Bill, in that it adjusts any legislation that might otherwise hinder the construction and operation of Crossrail. It includes a number of different paragraphs, a couple of which relate to London lorries and the effects of the London lorry ban order—the Greater London (Restriction of Goods Vehicles) Traffic Order 1985—on the Crossrail project.

Paragraph 10 of the schedule makes provision for the approval of a lorry licence if certain conditions are met. In principle, I can see that that is absolutely necessary, but the paragraph goes on to state that

“no condition may be imposed which is likely to obstruct the carrying out of authorised works”.

My concern about that wording is that there may be a number of circumstances in which localised conditions mean that the use of lorries will have to be slightly curtailed or at least regulated. I imagine that if a permit were granted, extra conditions would be imposed only if absolutely necessary, and if that were absolutely necessary, it would be unwise for the Bill to state that such a condition would automatically not be enforceable.

The underlying motivation for the amendment is a desire to see that the construction of Crossrail is carried out responsibly. I hope that the Minister will elucidate exactly how schedule 13 and, in particular, paragraph 10 in relation to approval of a lorry licence will operate, and reassure me that my amendment is not required.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

Again, the amendment is not necessary, but I can understand why the hon. Gentleman tabled it and the concerns that he has expressed. Paragraph 10 of schedule 13 deals with applications for the issue of a permit under the London lorry ban order in connection with the carrying out of Crossrail works authorised by the Bill, whether in an emergency, when special procedures set out in paragraph 11 apply, or in other circumstances. The London lorry ban order enables restrictions to be put in place on the use of heavy goods vehicles in the scheme area to help to minimise noise pollution in residential areas during unsocial hours.

Sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 10 requires that if an application is granted

“no condition may be imposed which is likely to obstruct the carrying out of authorised works...in a timely and efficient manner, or...in accordance with approved arrangements.”

Sub-paragraph (4) allows an applicant aggrieved by a decision on the issue under sub-paragraph (2) or conditioning under sub-paragraph (3) of a permit to appeal to the Secretary of State.

The amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Wimbledon would allow the authority responsible for issuing permits to condition the permit in a way that could obstruct the timely and efficient carrying out of Crossrail works or be inconsistent with approvals previously given by the relevant local planning authorities to lorry routes.

The amendment is not desirable. It would allow the issuing authority to overrule the careful consideration that local planning authorities will already have given to the matter of lorry routing under the schedule 7 consents process. Schedule 7 expressly provides that the local planning authority may modify the nominated undertaker’s proposed arrangements for lorry routing on grounds including the preservation of the local environment, where that is reasonably possible. In other words, the amendment would undermine the good work that local authorities had already done on lorry routing.

In addition, the amendment would expose the project to additional cost and risk of delay. It is unreasonable for the project to face that risk, given the protections available to local residents through the schedule 7 process. There is the opportunity to petition in the Bill itself, and there have been a number of undertakings to petitioners on the matter of lorry routing. With those assurances about the other protections available to local residents as regards lorry routing, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I listened carefully to the Minister and I am happy to accept his invitation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 59, in schedule 13, page 206, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 35 and insert—

‘( ) Where an appeal under sub-paragraph (4) is dismissed by the Secretary of State, it should be referred to arbitration’.

The amendment is self-explanatory. It would transfer the task of dispute resolution from the Secretary of State to a third-party arbiter. Clause 62 sets out a robust arbitration process, which would be suitable for resolving the kind of dispute that may arise as a result of the necessary disruption caused by the construction and operation of Crossrail. The resolution procedure provides, for example, that if two parties cannot agree on an arbiter, the president of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers or someone appointed by the ORR will perform the role of arbiter. If such an arbitration process is good enough to deal with disputes arising from provisions elsewhere in the Bill, why is it not good enough to deal with those arising from the provisions in this schedule?

The key benefit of arbitration is that the final decision is made by a person who is accepted by both parties to the dispute, which gives the arbiter the necessary authority and independence. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State would come to a reasoned and fair decision, but I fear, as I have said previously, that he or she may not have the same perceived independence as a third-party arbiter. Clause 62 provides for an independent arbiter, and such a person would be much better suited than the Secretary of State to making the relevant decisions. I therefore look forward to the Minister accepting my invitation to agree to the amendment.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

Paragraph 10 of schedule 13 to the Bill deals with applications for the issue of permits under the London lorry ban order in connection with the carrying out of Crossrail works. Sub-paragraph (4) provides that an applicant who is aggrieved by the decision of the local authority responsible for issuing the permit may appeal to the Secretary of State within 28 days of notification of the decision. Sub-paragraph (5) provides that the Secretary of State may allow or dismiss the appeal or vary the decision of the authority concerned.

The hon. Gentleman’s amendment would replace the certainty provided by the Secretary of State’s decision to dismiss an appeal by the applicant, who is likely to be a contractor or sub-contractor to the nominated undertaker, with an uncertain and unclear right or obligation—the drafting does not make clear which—to seek arbitration following the Secretary of State’s decision. Given that applications for permits cannot always be planned far in advance, as the inclusion of an emergency procedure in paragraph 11 anticipates, the option of further protracting the decision-making process through the further step of mandatory referral to arbitration would be of no benefit to the applicant or the progression of the Crossrail project more generally. I hope that the reference to the emergency situation will explain why the provisions for arbitration or the lack of arbitration in the schedule differ from those in the schedules to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I have listened to the Minister and clearly the emergency issue is one of relevance and importance. However, I am surprised that he thinks that the drafting is unclear. I thought that the words “should be referred to” would have provided for a clear obligation. It might be that he thinks that the obligation would not help the process, but it might help those involved in the arbitration. I might revisit the amendment on Report, therefore, but at this stage I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Schedule 14

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 60, in schedule 14, page 210, line 24, at end insert—

‘( ) If the remains were interred less than 25 years ago, the nominated undertaker shall make every reasonable effort to identify the relatives or personal representative of the deceased, and consult those people as to how the nominated undertaker proposes to carry out its functions under this Schedule with respect to the disposal of the remains or monument.’.

We now turn to the question of the construction of Crossrail affecting the burial grounds of human remains and monuments to the deceased. I am aware that the Select Committee considered a number of petitions about that and has carried out some excellent work. However, clearly the removal of burial grounds and monuments in order to make way for the construction of Crossrail is an important and sensitive issue, which the Bill tackles comprehensively. Paragraph 1(1) and (2) of schedule 14 requires the nominated undertaker to publish details of removals, and sub-paragraph (3) relaxes those rules when dealing with the remains of someone who died more than a century ago. That appears to be appropriate.

My amendment, however, proposes an additional sub-paragraph that would change the rules when dealing with the remains of those who died more recently and would represent a more sensitive way of dealing with this very distressing matter. Twenty five years is a relatively short period for burials. I accept that no obligation could be placed on a nominated undertaker to take the approach proposed in the amendment when dealing with all interred remains. However, very little effort would be required in order for the nominated undertaker to find relatives of those interred more recently. They could refer easily to undertakers that performed the particular ceremony, church records or the electoral role. Rather than just placing a notice in a newspaper, a slightly more demanding obligation should be placed on the nominated undertaker in order to relieve some of the distress caused to the families of those interred less than 25 years ago whose remains will be removed to make way for the albeit necessary construction of Crossrail.

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

I support the amendment. In fact I would go even further and, therefore, seek help from the Minister. Many people have moved out of London, many of whom came to Northamptonshire, on an overspill basis, 40 years ago. Many of their grandparents are the people we are talking about, but they might have died 40 or 50 years ago. Although I recognise that there is a limit to what he can do for those people, will he rethink this scenario very seriously? It will impact immensely on sizeable numbers of Northamptonshire residents, and I am sure that the same goes for other counties. Will he be kind and give us and them some comfort in that respect?

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

Schedule 14 deals with moving human remains and monuments from burial grounds and re-interring or cremating the remains necessary to construct Crossrail. Before that happens, under the Bill the nominated undertaker, as it were, must publish the proposal twice in a local newspaper and erect a site notice unless the remains were interred more than 100 years ago and the Secretary of State considers that no relative or personal representative is likely to object. That will give relatives and personal representatives the opportunity to re-inter or cremate the remains themselves.

The provisions have a precedent in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996, and have not proved controversial. Under the amendment, if the interment took place less than 25 years ago the nominated undertaker would have to seek out relatives or personal representatives, which would place substantial additional burdens on the nominated undertaker. In addition, the requirement in the amendment is open-ended, so that if no personal representative were found, every relative would have to be sought, which I am sure was not what the hon. Member for Wimbledon intended. Lawyers look at the exact wording of such proposals with great care, and it would be difficult to establish whether sufficient steps had been taken in any particular case and thus at what point the nominated undertaker could proceed with his work.

The amendment is also unlikely to have any substantive effect. As reported in the Crossrail environmental statement, Cross London Rail Links has carried out an archaeological assessment of the land affected by the project, expected scheme impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. The assessment indicated that the project is not expected to affect any interments made within the past 25 years. For those reasons, I do not support the amendment, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I welcome you back to the Chair, Lady Winterton.

I am not sure that I agree with the Minister that the amendment would place a substantial burden on the nominated undertaker. I was interested to learn that the Minister’s favourite profession advised him that we would have to try to identify every relative. Clearly, that is not my intention—perhaps the amendment should have said “a relative” rather than “the relatives”.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

Dead right.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

There is a lot of gallows humour this afternoon. I did not intend that the amendment should impose considerable burdens on people, but as drafted it would do so. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 51

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 61, in clause 51, page 31, line 36, at end insert

‘after consultation with the Chief Executive of the Royal Parks Association and any other relevant interested parties’.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 63, in clause 51, page 31, line 41, leave out ‘appears to the Secretary of State’ and insert

‘the Secretary of State has determined’.

No. 62, in clause 51, page 32, line 2, leave out ‘appears to’, and insert ‘has been proven by’.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

There was some confusion about the amendments. There was initially some transposition of their wording, but that problem has been corrected on the amendment paper. The Minister was quick to spot the transposition, and I congratulate him on doing so. I have also made an error in amendment No. 61, which I am sure will cause him to make some other point. The amendment should state “Royal Parks Agency”, not “Royal Parks Association”.

Clause 51 looks at the disposal of land managed by the Royal Parks Agency or the Crown Estate Commissioners on behalf of the Crown. Under the clause, the Secretary of State may grant a lease, easement or other right over such land. The purpose of my amendment is to avoid any perceived conflict of interest resulting from the fact that, as the explanatory notes point out, the Secretary of State is also

“the legal personality of the Royal Parks Agency”.

It would require the Secretary of State to consult with the operational head of the Royal Parks Agency before exercising his powers in respect of the Crown land, and it would introduce a consultation process with other interested parties. It would also ensure that the basis of any decision to dispose of Crown land is as robust as possible, and is informed by consultation with the most appropriate parties.

Amendments Nos. 63 and 62 are designed to achieve the same effect. They would make a minor change to the wording of the clause, and would require the Secretary of State to demonstrate that the land in question was needed for Crossrail. A consistent theme of mine during our sittings has been to ensure that we provide accountability and responsibility while giving the Secretary of State the flexibility and the exceptional powers that he wants. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the amendments.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

Clause 51 deals with technical constraints arising under the Crown Lands Act 1851 and the Crown Estate Act 1961. Because land forming part of the royal parks or the Crown estate belongs to the Crown, it does not need to be compulsorily acquired, but it may none the less need to be used if we are to successfully build and operate Crossrail. Clause 51 applies only to land within the limits of deviation for the scheduled works, and thus within the limits of land to be acquired or used. Its provisions have effect only where the body responsible for managing the land—the Secretary of State in the case of royal parks and the Crown Estate Commissioners in the case of Crown estate land—considers that it is required for Crossrail. It might be helpful if I gave an example to explain why we need clause 51.

To comply with safety requirements we intend to build a shaft in Hyde park. The likely significant impacts of the shaft were assessed in the environmental statement that was deposited with the Bill and those affected had the opportunity to petition against our proposals. Naturally, we discussed our plans with the Royal Parks Agency. In addition, some land required to provide the subsoil land for the Crossrail tunnels is owned by the Crown Estate Commissioners. Amendment No. 61 would require the Secretary of State to consult the chief executive of the royal parks association and any other relevant interested parties before granting a lease, easement or other right over a royal park. However, as I have explained, our proposals for Hyde park have already been the subject of extensive consultation during proceedings on the Bill.

On the question of the royal parks association, as the hon. Gentleman has already pointed out he meant the Royal Parks Agency, which is an executive agency of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The status of the agency may change from time to time, so it would be inappropriate to write the Department’s internal management structures into the Bill. That has some relevance, given our earlier discussion about whether to name Network Rail in the Bill. Furthermore, a requirement to consult

“any other relevant interested parties”

would give rise to uncertainty as to who they were. After listening to the hon. Gentleman I am not clear what other interested parties he has in mind.

Amendment No. 62 would require the Secretary of State to prove that land within a royal park is needed for, or in connection with, the construction of Crossrail before he or she could grant any lease, easement or other right in relation to that land. The Secretary of State granting a lease, easement or other right will, at the relevant time, have to make a judgment as to whether it appears to them that the land is required. To include a requirement to prove that it is required does not make an awful lot of sense, because it suggests that a third party exists to whom it should be proved. No such party exists and no such party is proposed in the amendment.

Amendment No. 63 would limit the effect of clause 51(3) to cases in which the Secretary of State has determined that land within the Crown estate is needed for, or in connection with, the construction of Crossrail. Under the Bill, it would be for the Crown Estate Commissioners to be satisfied that part of the Crown estate was needed for, or in connection with, Crossrail. For the purposes of the provision, we think that it is right that that approach should be maintained and that it is the Crown Estate Commissioners who should take a view. I hope that that has clarified things for the hon. Gentleman and that he will consider withdrawing his amendment.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

As the constituency Member for Hyde park, among other royal parks and landmarks of this great city, I should like to confirm what the Minister said. There was extensive consultation on the building of the new site at the edge of Hyde park, close to the border with Bayswater road. A number of concerns were raised by my constituents, many of whom voiced ongoing concern about the increasing commercialisation of Hyde park. The issue was used as yet another cause cÃ(c)lèbre, but it is important none the less.

I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon. It does not strike me that “other relevant...parties” in the context of this issue are an extensive group of bodies. There is a well regarded list of amenity societies and residents associations in central London—I am sure the same applies to any other part of the UK covered by the measure—and the provision would apply to Friends of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens, and perhaps to the Marylebone Association and the South East Bayswater Residents Association. It would therefore apply to a very small and defined group. Westminster city council gives status to certain residents groups for the very purpose of their being consulted before planning changes are made, and they have locus standi in such matters. I do not expect that to be a particular problem.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

I urge the hon. Gentleman to use his legal background. believe he trained as a solicitor—I am sorry about that—so does he accept that the catch-all phrase,

“any other relevant interested parties”,

suggests a level of ambiguity that is not helpful? He is right that there is a very specific list of organisations that I am sure would be appropriate, but the proposal does not necessarily point the way to those people.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I am happy to assist the Minister by suggesting that there must be something in the channel tunnel rail legislation along those lines. The world did not become a much worse place when I ceased to be a lawyer. Some of my constituents might argue that the same will be said if I cease to be a parliamentarian before too long, but I sincerely have no such intention in mind.

I accept what the Minister said. We need clarity, and I am not suggesting that the proposal is 100 per cent. ideal. However, it does make an important point about Crown estate land. The royal parks are very close to the hearts of countless millions of people—many of them are constituents of mine, but many of them are not—who value the wonderful amenity they provide. I would point out to the Committee that there are many royal parks outside central London, and it is with that in mind that we tried to target a particular concern.

I do not think that there is any likelihood of the royal parks soon leaving the hands of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It is important to remember that in relation to compulsory purchase, particularly in central London, large tracts of Crown estate land are outside the scope of the Bill unless we protect them individually. I hope that the Minister has taken account of what we have said, because it is an important point. It would be a crying shame if, given the importance of much Crown estate land throughout the country, we bypassed the interests of residents and amenity groups in the vicinity by not giving credence to their concerns. It would be perverse in many ways if the Secretary of State had cartÃ(c) blanchÃ(c) to develop those areas, which are regarded by many people almost as common land, given that we rightly have all the safeguards in place for the compulsory purchase of privately owned land.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I thank my hon. Friend for that valuable contribution—not least the clarification with regard to his own constituency and the shaft at Hyde park, for which there might be relevant interested parties—as it offered a clear indication of what “relevant interested parties” might be. I am disappointed that the Minister will not accept that the term “relevant and interested parties”, while it may cause minor ambiguity, would not give cartÃ(c) blanchÃ(c) for interest groups with no particular local or relevant interest—they would be ruled out. The amendment makes it quite clear which groups would be relevant.

As the Minister rightly pointed out, the thrust of a number of our amendments has been concern to ensure appropriate consultation. We are worried that there has not been enough consultation with outside parties throughout.

The other issue is the limiting of discretionary powers. I hear the Minister’s points, but I hope that he will think carefully about whether there is some suitable wording that he could accept and that we could consider. However, I do not wish to press the Committee and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 53

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 65, in clause 53, page 32, line 27, leave out ‘nominated undertaker’ and insert ‘Secretary of State’.

The clause is probably the shortest in the Bill, but it is significant. I return to the issue of compensation, which we have discussed more than once in Committee. The clause provides that section 10(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 will apply in respect of land used for or in connection with the construction of Crossrail. That section deals with those claiming

“compensation in respect of any land, or any interest in land, which has been taken for or injuriously affected by the execution of the works, and for which the acquiring authority have not made satisfaction”.

There is, however, a small but significant alteration to the wording of the 1965 Act—the substitution of “nominated undertaker” for “the acquiring authority”. If we do not do that, the Bill will effectively muddy what is already the grey area of the respective duties and responsibilities of the Secretary of State and the nominated undertaker.

The Committee might recall that when we dealt with clause 6 on compulsory purchase, I tabled an amendment that would have given the nominated undertaker, as opposed to the Secretary of State, the powers to purchase compulsorily. The Minister said that he was tempted by my amendment, but not quite enough, and it was therefore withdrawn. It is clear in the clause that the Secretary of State alone is responsible for the compulsory purchase of land. However, on the question of compensation, it appears that, although the Secretary of State will have compulsorily purchased the land and will be the acquiring authority, the responsibility for compensation now passes to the nominated undertaker.

To make the clause work, therefore, we need to insert the words “Secretary of State” rather than “nominated undertaker”, as outlined in the amendment. Otherwise, we will have an odd perversity, which is that the Secretary of State will have compulsorily acquired the land, yet the nominated undertaker—who may or may not be the Secretary of State, as we discovered previously—will pay out the compensation. That is very strange.

If a landowner’s land were seized or compulsorily purchased by one person, it would seem strange if he had to seek compensation from another. If, as is the case in clause 6, we make the Secretary of State the person who compulsorily acquires the land, it seems perfectly consistent that that Secretary of State must also take on the duties and responsibilities associated with the purchase. Therefore, my amendment would make the clause consistent with other clauses by taking out the words “nominated undertaker” and replacing them with “Secretary of State”.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

On this occasion, I am not even tempted to support the amendment, and I can explain why. Clause 53 is a technical provision that arises from the fact that, although under the Bill the power to acquire land compulsorily for Crossrail is conferred on the Secretary of State, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the power to carry out works on that land is conferred on the nominated undertaker. Section 10 of the 1965 Act gives a right to compensation in certain cases where, although landowners do not have particular land that they own compulsorily acquired from them, they none the less have rights associated with their land adversely affected by things done by the undertaker in constructing works on neighbouring land that has been acquired from someone else.

The purpose of clause 53 is to reflect the division of responsibilities made in the Bill so that, in such cases, it is made absolutely clear that the nominated undertaker pays the compensation under section 10 of the 1965 Act, rather than the Secretary of State, simply because of the practical reason that the actions of the nominated undertaker, in carrying out work on neighbouring land, have given rise to the right of compensation.

In this case, it is not the purchase of the land that has given rise to the right of compensation, but the “injurious affection”, as it is described in the clause. The clause does not change the cases where compensation arises, or the amount of compensation payable. It is concerned only with who will pay, as a consequence of the particular division of responsibilities in the Bill.

The amendment would negatively affect the clause by providing for the Secretary of State to pay the compensation. For that reason alone, I cannot support the amendment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands my point and withdraws the amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I certainly understand the Minister’s point. Effectively, he is saying that the actions that occur on the land after it has been compulsorily acquired attract compensation, not the physical act of compulsory purchase itself. However, I am not quite sure that I follow his point that the amendment would negatively affect the Secretary of State. Can he clarify that?

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

To clarify, the clause refers to section 10(1) of the 1965 Act. I am not accusing the Secretary of State of carrying out any injurious affection on anyone. My point is that the nominated undertaker will carry out the work. Therefore, there is a clear division of responsibility. The Secretary of State purchases the land, and there are compensation arrangements in place for that purchase, separate from the clause. The nominated undertaker, however, will be responsible for carrying out any work that may be injurious to the private landowner, so it does not make sense for the Secretary of State to pay compensation for the purchase and the work that is carried out.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I thank the Minister for that very full explanation, and the matter is now perfectly clear. With your permission, Lady Winterton, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Susan Kramer (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

In many senses, the clause represents a huge lost opportunity. When it was proposed that Crossrail might come down into my neck of the woods, properties along the route under discussion immediately lost about 25 per cent. of their value. The proposal was not particularly serious and it disappeared in a matter of months, but I did have extensive conversations with Crossrail’s management about a property protection scheme to ensure that proper compensation was paid to people whose property was affected. In cases of direct compulsory purchase, it was well understood that the needs of the property owner would be satisfied, but the clause talks about others whose property is impacted by the scheme.

Crossrail’s management was very positive about the property protection scheme that we discussed. It had been piloted by the central railway project, which never happened, although I should declare that I had an interest in it. Much of Crossrail’s management was familiar with the scheme, which would have given anyone who believed that their property had been affected the option of requiring it to be compulsorily purchased at the point of construction at what would have been the full market value without the affliction.

In effect, the scheme was structured like an insurance scheme, in that it would have remained attached to the project and been exercised only at the point of construction. The money would not have been drawn down, and the option would have attached to the sale of the property so that people could have sold freely, knowing that they were selling on protection to whoever purchased their property from them. The matter would finally have resolved itself during the construction phase.

We have a serious problem with major projects such as Crossrail, which have an impact on people who must sell their property because they need the money as part of their retirement plan or for some other purpose. The existing legislation is not adequate to cover such circumstances, and I hope that the Minister will use the opportunity afforded by the Bill to set out how such people can be protected appropriately.

Peter Soulsby (Labour, Leicester South)

I understand the hon. Lady’s concern about property owners affected by major projects such as Crossrail, but I remind the Committee yet again that it is for that reason that Parliament has the hybrid Bill procedure, which is intended to protect private interests during the promotion of such public Bills. We go through the process of specially establishing a Select Committee so that we can look at exactly the concerns she expressed.

Susan Kramer (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, even with the hybrid Bill process, there is often a long delay and that people selling property in the interim are inevitably injured? Does he also accept that one advantage of a property protection scheme is that the market identifies who has suffered because the price that they are offered for their property is different from that offered for a comparable property that is not afflicted? Many issues of contention regarding which property is or is not affected therefore disappear because the market establishes the facts.

Peter Soulsby (Labour, Leicester South)

Again, I entirely understand the hon. Lady’s point, but the hybrid Bill process allows for precisely the concerns that she has expressed. It enables those who fear that their land or property might be adversely affected by the Bill and the scheme that it enables to petition against the Bill in the Commons—the stage that we have gone through—and the Lords. I assure her that that the hybrid Bill Committee heard many petitions on matters related to compensation. Many people expressed both their particular and general concern about the likely effects of the Bill on their neighbourhood on behalf of those who lived around them. We took careful note of the concerns that were expressed and, in some cases, made recommendations to the promoters and the Government on ways in which those interests could be given special protection. We are grateful to the promoters for the attention that they paid to those concerns and the amendments that they made to deal with specific situations and more generally as a result of those representations.

I certainly think that the other members of the Select Committee all felt at the end of the process that those who had had concerns similar to those expressed today by the hon. Member for Richmond Park were heard appropriately and had the opportunity for their concerns to be taken into account. In the overwhelming number of cases, those people felt that their concerns had been adequately satisfied and their interests appropriately protected. I feel that her concern about what she described as a missed opportunity in the clause is misplaced. Those concerns have already been taken into account and those with lingering concerns will have the opportunity to petition again when the Bill goes through the Lords and to ensure that their concerns are taken into account if they have not yet been so.

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

As the other member of the Committee who was also a member of the hybrid Bill Committee, I support what has just been said. The hybrid Bill Committee concerned itself at great length with the whole issue of compensation, because it seemed to us that the promoters were shoving through a project, rightly so from many people’s perspectives, but that was not the fault of the people who would be affected. Therefore, we fought long and hard on their behalf and gained some considerable advantages for them as a result.

My fear is that the amendment would be immensely misplaced in relation to the work that we did. I think that the rights are already protected in the Bill and I am well satisfied that the compensation code would be properly applied. Additional rights were given as a result of the work of the hybrid Bill Committee and it therefore seems that, not only is the amendment pretty pointless, it could also be harmful.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

I thank hon. Members for their contributions on the stand part debate. The hon. Member for Richmond Park made some important points, and I know that she is concerned about the general problem of blight as it affects many private property owners. Of course, that problem has impeded any number of civil engineering and construction projects throughout the country and it continues to trouble many private property owners along the routes of roads and other potential civil engineering projects.

I disagree that the clause is a missed opportunity. If I understand the comments of the hon. Member for Richmond Park correctly, she is looking for a new, general purpose procedure that would apply not only to Crossrail, but to other civil engineering projects. Of course, that is not part of the purpose of the Bill and the clause is somewhat narrower than the scope of her points, but they were well made and I am sure she will want to continue that campaign elsewhere.

I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South and those of the hon. Member for Northampton, South. It is invaluable to have two previous members of the Select Committee, as they bring a certain perspective that none of the rest of us have or would have wanted, given the length of time that they served on that Committee. Their remarks have always contributed to positive debate and I am grateful to them both.

I agree with the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South made about the opportunity for petitioners to speak to the Committee, raise the issues with which they had concerns and have them addressed. A discretionary hardship policy exists that allows qualifying landowners to require the purchase of their property. Of course, it is discretionary and will not meet all the demands of the hon. Member for Richmond Park. However, now that we have explored the breadth of this modest and short clause, I commend it to the Committee.

Clause 54

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Before we move on, I want some clarification from the Minister. The clause disapplies the provisions of the Water Resources Act 1991, which prohibits any form of water abstraction if it has injurious effects on another person. I understand that water abstraction might be a necessary part of the works performed to build Crossrail, but there are some serious implications that I want to consider with the Minister. Have the deposited plans identified any scenarios in which water will need to be abstracted in a way that might cause loss or damage? As I understand it, the clause is one of the few that has no precedent in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996. The Minister wants extra new powers that have no precedent. I am sure that they will be necessary because of the uniqueness of the Crossrail project, but will he tell us why the Secretary of State will need those plans and where on the identified route they are likely to apply?

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

As far as I know, the hon. Gentleman is correct that the measure is unprecedented in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act. The Bill is not intended as a carbon copy of that Act and many of the clauses in the Bill will be adopted by future Governments to inform the construction of their policy.

Clause 54(1) disapplies the provisions of the Water Resources Act 1991 that would otherwise impose an absolute prohibition on abstracting water if that causes loss or damage to another person. Such a restriction could well prevent or delay Crossrail works from being constructed. Clause 54(2) provides that where water abstraction has caused loss or damage, the person suffering the loss or damage must be compensated. The overall effect of the clause is that the duty to avoid damage by water abstraction creates the possibility of compensation for damage but not the possibility of a court injunction. The practical protection for property owners arises from the requirement that the Environment Agency pre-approve abstraction, for which the hon. Gentleman can refer to paragraph 3 of part 3 of schedule 16.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether any work had been done that would suggest that water abstraction could be to the detriment of the construction of Crossrail. Once again, because we are at such an early stage without even having started construction, the purpose of those who drafted the Bill was to try to foresee all circumstances in the hope that the powers in the clause would not ever have to be used. Once again, going back to the cost and importance of the project, it is only fair that we should adopt a belt-and-braces attitude.

Clause 56

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

In the same spirit as my comments on clause 54, I want to clarify some points with the Minister. Clause 56 effectively allows most of the provisions in the Bill to apply to any proposed extension of the Crossrail network. Does that mean any extension that is carried out under an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992? I can see that if the network is expanded, it should receive the same statutory support as planned under the network. However, unless I have read the clause completely wrongly, would not an extension to the Crossrail network that occurred or was proposed in the construction period re-hybridise the Bill? The extension would then be subject to the same scrutiny that the hon. Member for Leicester, South has indicated he experienced and enjoyed.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

I strongly suspect that the hon. Gentleman has read the clause completely wrongly, but I shall try to explain. Clause 56 allows any TWA order that relates to a proposed extension of Crossrail or to provision of a facility connected with Crossrail to apply to any provision of the Bill, with any modifications necessary to the order, or to provide that any provision of the Bill should have effect as if the extension were part of Crossrail.

Let me explain the purpose of Clause 56. As the hon. Gentleman knows from earlier debates, the Bill establishes a bespoke regime for Crossrail. It modifies and disapplies various pieces of legislation, and replaces them with a tailor-made regime that is based heavily on that created by the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996. Indeed, he will recall from our debate last week that the Bill creates a bespoke planning and railway regulatory regime for Crossrail.

If a TWA order is subsequently sought for an extension to Crossrail—for example, to Reading or Ebbsfleet—or for a new Crossrail facility such as a new station, the TWA order cannot necessarily apply the same regime to the works as is established by the Bill. The reason is that, as a form of delegated legislation, TWA orders are limited in their ability to modify the application of legislation.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

For the purposes of clarity, is the Minister saying that a TWA order cannot extend Crossrail?

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

TWA orders have their own scrutiny mechanism, which would apply to any future extension. Any future extension would have to be considered separately, although not as part of a hybrid Bill.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I am following the Minister’s logic, but I think that, in fact, I read the clause correctly, and I still have not had the answer to my question. The question was whether any route extension to Crossrail can be made without it being subject to hybrid Bill provisions, such that it does not require the same scrutiny—nor present the same possibility of petitioning—as was the case for the original route. If that is the correct position, it is a curious one.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

It is my exact understanding that any future proposal to extend Crossrail—albeit there is no such proposal at present—could be achieved through a TWA order rather than through the hybrid Bill process. Perhaps I could continue to the end of my remarks, and if the hon. Gentleman then has further questions I shall be happy to answer them.

The clause would allow any TWA order to make the necessary provision to ensure that any extension or new facility was subject to the same regime as the Crossrail scheme covered by the Bill. The Government believe that that makes perfect sense. It would be confusing and unhelpful if one regime applied to parts of Crossrail and another applied to others. Having said that, there are safeguards. Certain provisions of the Bill that deal with extension of compulsory purchase powers, listed buildings, buildings in conservation areas and ancient monuments are excluded from such application. Any TWA order that sought to apply the Crossrail Bill regime would of course follow the normal procedures for such orders. Those affected would have the opportunity to object to any aspects of the Bill regime that the order proposed should apply, and have their concerns heard by an independent inspector as part of the TWA order process.

I had intended to conclude my remarks on the amendment at that point, by if the hon. Gentleman has questions, I shall try my best to answer them.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I do no think that I have any further supplementary questions, but the Minister has made some very interesting observations that have expanded on the information contained in the explanatory notes. Given that, and given my understanding of the way in which his remarks tie up with the explanatory notes, we shall certainly wish to the clause revisit on report.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

For clarification, a TWA order can extend Crossrail. However, without the provisions in this clause, the same statutory regime cannot apply. That is why we need the clause.

Susan Kramer (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

I thank the Minister for that response, but we are beginning to descend into complete confusion. Is what he is describing a sort of TWA-plus, so that it essentially builds up to the level of protection of the hybrid Bill for the extension, or is he saying that this will be a classic TWA with no more protection than any other project?

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

I am not sure whether I can add to the comments that I have already made. The situation remains that a TWA order can extend Crossrail. The hon. Lady mentioned safeguarding. The decision to safeguard, for example, the route to Reading is on my desk, and I will be considering that in the very near future. That would simply keep options open, so that in the future the Government could choose, through a TWA order, to extend Crossrail to Reading. Once again, I must emphasise that that is not what the Government propose at the moment. I talked merely about safeguarding. However, that is the process that would have to be gone through if Crossrail were to be extended either westwards to Reading or south to Ebbsfleet.

Schedule 15

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 67, in schedule 15, page 213, line 39, at end insert—

‘( ) Where the site on which the facility was situated prior to discontinuation is available for re-use, the facility should be reinstated under sub-paragraph (1) for the original purpose of the facility and on this site.

( ) Where the site on which the facility was situated prior to discontinuation is not available for re-use, the facility should be reinstated under sub-paragraph (1) on a site as close as possible to this site.’.

Schedule 15 is obviously important, in that it deals with the steps that must be taken to reinstate facilities that have necessarily been taken out of use as a result of the construction of Crossrail. Paragraph 1(4) provides that the reinstatement

“need not be on the site where the facilities were situated prior to discontinuation.”

Of course, in a perfect world, once Crossrail was up and running, we would be able to return buildings and facilities affected by construction to their original state and, in most cases, to their original location and no one would know that it had been a construction site before. This is not a perfect world and I acknowledge that in a number of cases it might not be possible to do that. However, as the Bill stands, there is no obligation on the nominated undertaker even to try to reinstate the disused facilities in their original location.

My amendment is designed to address that gap in the Bill. If the amendment were to prevail, the nominated undertaker would have a duty to reinstate the facility on its original site if it were possible physically to do that. If it were found to be physically impossible, he would have to reinstate the facility as near to the original site as he could. That seems a logical and reasonable way to ensure that the damage caused by Crossrail construction is, to as great an extent as possible, reversed once the construction work is done and reversed in such a way that the original facility is put back in its original state. I look forward to the Minister commenting on the amendment.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendment is perfectly reasonable and sensible. Nevertheless, I ask my colleagues to resist it if it is pressed to a vote, because it is not appropriate to this clause. Schedule 15 relates to the reinstatement of facilities that have been discontinued as a result of the construction of Crossrail, and provides for conditions to be placed on the deemed planning permission granted by the Bill for such reinstatement if it has been environmentally assessed. That reinstatement may be on the original site or elsewhere within Bill limits, which is to say that it must be within the limits set out in the Bill for land to be acquired or used. For example, there is a concrete batching plant at Royal Oak that falls within an area that we need for a worksite. We are in the process of negotiating an agreement with the owners of the plant regarding the provision of a replacement facility. The amendment would mean that any such replacement facility would have to be placed on, or as close as possible to, the original facility.

Proximity to the original site is not the only, or even the most important, factor when deciding on the most appropriate site for reinstated facilities. Generally speaking, Crossrail works will have altered the site and the former location of a facility may no longer be the best one. When deciding on the best location for a reinstated facility, there may be a number of factors to balance, including the operational needs of the business, the operational needs of Crossrail and the impact on neighbouring sites. Depending on the circumstances of the case, it is possible that all of those factors might point towards relocating the facility. The availability of sufficient land within the limits set out in the Bill for land to be acquired or used, may also be a consideration.

That said, for facilities that we intend to reinstate, we currently expect to put the replacement facility very close to the site of the original, where practicable. For instance, there is a Travellers’ site in Tower Hamlets that will need to be used for a worksite. To meet the desires of the Travellers and the local authority, we plan to relocate them to a site adjacent to the existing one. I believe that it overlaps the existing site. We do not think that it would be appropriate always to constrain the position of a new site in the manner proposed. It would not necessarily result in a location that pleased anyone. Local amenity considerations regarding the site of replacement facilities could mean that it would be wrong, in planning terms, to reinstate near an existing site.

There are a range of considerations that the Secretary of State might take into account in the public interest. I should stress, however, that the Bill provides deemed planning permission for reinstated works only if an appropriate environmental assessment has been carried out and reported in an environmental statement accompanying Bill. The amendment is a touch too prescriptive and represents some form of over-regulation. I do not think that it is appropriate to this part of the Bill, although I accept that the intention behind the amendment is good.

Peter Soulsby (Labour, Leicester South)

I will not harp on for too long about what was discussed at the hybrid Bill Committee, but I will back up what the Minister has said. At that Committee, a number of the representations were made about those who will have to be relocated temporarily and about whether it was appropriate for them to be reinstated on the original site or whether some alternatives were to be found. Those who were to be affected had an opportunity to petition and many took it.

To accept the amendment would be too prescriptive. The solutions that were found were in some cases quite creative, but in almost all cases meant that the petitioners whose land was to be affected would find themselves in a better position than they had been in.

The Minister mentioned one example of a concrete batching plant. That was a case that we spent a considerable time on and came to some particular solutions that were satisfactory to all parties concerned. I understand the intention behind the clause, but suggest that it is unnecessary, given the consideration at the hybrid Bill Committee and that which will be given in another place.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I listened to the hon. Gentleman and noticed that when the words “concrete batching plant” crossed the Minister’s lips, there was a facial contortion. I can only assume that that case took up rather a long time at the Select Committee. I am glad that they came to some concrete solutions.

I am glad that the Minister accepts that we are on to something and I take his point that there are a range of options beyond those that I specified in the amendment. As the clause is drafted, there is no firm obligation to restore sites as close as possible to the original site. I take the Minister’s point that it will be done as much as is practically possible in as many cases as possible. I take his point that the amendment may be worded too tightly. We may wish to redraft the amendments before Report and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 68, in schedule 15, page 214, line 20, leave out ‘he thinks’ and insert ‘might reasonably be considered’.

This amendment and the following one are relatively small modifications to the wording of paragraph 2 of the schedule, which deals with planning permission issues that may arise as a result of the reinstatement of disused facilities.

The amendment simply replaces the words “he thinks” with “might reasonably be considered” in the context of the method used by the Secretary of State to publish any directions relating to deemed planning permission in his report. I will not dwell long on justification of the amendment; the Minister will be able to see the thought process behind it. It implies that rather than just thinking about the matter he might have to undertake some consultation. The small change in the wording would allow the Secretary of State to carry out his or her duties in a way that is responsible, appropriate and seen to have been accountable.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

Amendment No. 68 relates to the requirement to publish any directions given under schedule 15 to condition deemed planning permission for reinstated facilities or to disapply or modify the application of schedule 7 to such works. As the duty to publish is a duty placed on the Secretary of State, she must be the one to decide what is the most appropriate manner to do so. Moreover, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State is under a general duty to act reasonably. Although it is a minor change and in the hon. Gentleman’s view it would not change it a great deal, the amendment does not add very much to the Bill and I ask him to consider withdrawing it.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

It is a minor change but its purpose is to ensure that the Secretary of State not only acts in a responsible way but is seen, and proven, to be doing so. That is the thrust of several of our amendments. I am disappointed that the Minister will not accept the minor changes in the wording but it is not worth dividing the Committee on the proposal. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 69, in schedule 15, page 214, line 23, at end insert ‘and any other relevant interested parties’.

I will not detain the Committee with this amendment, which we wanted to be on the record. Hon. Members will recognise that it is nearly identical to several others we have debated this afternoon and in previous sittings. In order to build and run the Crossrail network the Government and/or the nominated undertaker will need to intrude on private property and existing infrastructure, which is inevitable with a project of this scale. The key thing is to ensure that it is done in a right and proper way.

To keep disruption to a minimum, all affected parties must be kept informed and consulted and that is the motive behind the amendment. When deemed planning permission is provided by means of a direction, the details should be circulated to the owners and occupiers of the land over which permission is given and to anyone else who might be affected. That might incur a little additional work for the Secretary of State but it will ensure that all the appropriate people are made aware of any of the proposed works. I hope that the Minister will be tempted by this minor wording change.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

The hon. Member for Wimbledon started by saying that the amendment was identical to previous amendments. I am about to use arguments against it that are identical to previous arguments.

Schedule 15 already requires copies of the directions to be given to the owners and occupiers of the land to which the deemed planning permission relates, and to the relevant planning authority, as the persons with a clear and identifiable interest. It also requires the Secretary of State to publish the directions, so that they will be available to those who are less directly affected.

Amendment No. 69 would create an unnecessary administrative burden. It would require the Secretary of State to give copies of any directions given under schedule 15 to

“any other relevant interested parties”.

That would place a potentially large burden on the Secretary of State and it could lead to lengthy arguments, perhaps even legal arguments, about whether all “relevant interested parties” have been identified.

The hon. Gentleman is a member of a party that consistently and regularly lectures the Government on over-regulation of industry. I would have thought that, in the interests of deregulation and simplification alone, he would wish to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

But of course if we were to listen to and follow the logic of the Minister’s answer, that way dictatorship lies, in that the powers would be invested only and entirely in the autocrat and they would be subject to no scrutiny at all. I am sure that the Minister would not want to confuse the over-regulation by his Government in one area with the under-consultation of his Government in another area. None the less, I have listened to the Minister and I am happy to accept his invitation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Schedule 16

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 75, in schedule 16, page 218, line 23, leave out from ‘arbitration’ to end of line 27.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 76, in schedule 16, page 225, line 4, leave out from ‘arbitration’ to end of line 8.

No. 77, in schedule 16, page 229, line 33, leave out from ‘arbitration’ to end of line 37.

No. 78, in schedule 16, page 232, line 45, leave out from ‘arbitration’ to end of line 49.

No. 79, in schedule 16, page 236, line 6, leave out from ‘arbitration’ to end of line 10.

No. 80, in schedule 16, page 239, line 46, leave out from ‘arbitration’ to end of line 2 on page 240.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Amendments Nos. 75 to 80 are identical, in that they would make exactly the same adjustment to each of the six parts of schedule 16. The schedule gives protection to various bodies whose work might be affected by the construction and operation of the Crossrail network. It deals, in turn, with highways, utilities, water issues, electronic communication networks, waterways and finally the Port of London Authority. In each case, there is a sub-paragraph that deals with dispute resolution. Disputes will be settled by arbitration if the two parties agree; if the two parties do not agree, then, with the proviso that the dispute is not about money, it will be up to the Secretary of State to appoint someone to find a solution.

I do not want to regurgitate the concern that we have had all the way along about arbitration. All I will say is that, given the fact that there will be a very real relationship between the nominated undertaker and the Secretary of State, we do not want the situation where—we have been through this before—the defendant is trying his own case.

It seems to me that the arbitration process that should be employed should be fair and independent, and the Secretary of State should not intervene in that process. The decision of a third party arbitrator will enjoy the benefits of authority and impartiality. The Secretary of State, however much they believe themselves to have a duty of responsibility, cannot be seen to be independent. Therefore, it should not be the job of the Secretary of State to resolve disputes of this kind.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

Schedule 16 contains protection for various bodies and statutory undertakers whose interests and functions may be affected by the powers of the Bill. In each case, there is provision for determination of disputes, with the nominated undertaker to be referred to arbitration if the parties agree or if the dispute relates to the amount of payment. Otherwise, the dispute is determined by a person appointed by the relevant Secretary of State; that is the Secretary of State for Transport, together with—where it is a different Secretary of State—the Secretary of State who has the responsibility of overseeing the statutory undertaking in question. In other words, for the water industry it would be the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and so on.

The hon. Gentleman’s amendments would require all disputes to be referred to arbitration. May I refer him to the response that I gave in relation to the similar issues in respect of amendments Nos. 26 and 27? Giving the Secretary of State the ability to determine disputes on various matters is well precedented for projects of national significance and follows similar provisions in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996. Arbitration can be a time-consuming and costly experience that may not be consistent with the timely implementation of the project.

In this case, however, we have gone beyond the precedent in CTRL in spelling out that disputes are to be determined by a person appointed by the Secretary of State and we have also provided that any disputes about the amount of money payable will be settled by arbitration: such disputes would not hold up implementation of the project in the way that a dispute over approval of plans of the works might do. The statutory undertakers concerned have the additional reassurance that the Secretary of State responsible for them will be one of the Secretaries of State appointing the person to determine the dispute.

The provisions have been discussed with the statutory undertakers concerned and include amendments that have been agreed with them. The Secretary of State has given assurances about how the powers will be exercised. My understanding is that the statutory undertakers are now content with these arrangements and I urge the hon. Gentleman not to seek to impose such a modification on the arrangements when they are not seeking that themselves. I invite him to withdraw his amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

As the Minister said, we have had this discussion several times. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act has been our precedent on a number of occasions although I think that we have accepted this afternoon that we should not necessarily follow it slavishly.

I listened carefully to the Minister. The latter part of his argument was the most compelling in that he said that he has already undertaken consultation and has already worked with the nominated bodies that might be affected by the clause. They have had the chance to put in their own amendment, which has been accepted. That being so, it would be wrong of me to try to impose something that was not being sought by the people I am seeking to protect and who already feel that they have the protection. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 59

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

This will be a short contribution, but it is obviously an important clause. It will allow the Secretary of State to devolve some of the powers that she has given herself to other bodies. Certain provisions in this Bill qualify for being liable to be devolved either to the Greater London authority and/or Transport for London. Could the Minister tell us in what circumstances the Secretary of State envisaged delegating the exceptional powers that she has taken and the rationale behind that?

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

Clause 59 allows the Secretary of State, by means of an order, to devolve certain provisions of the Bill to the Greater London authority, Transport for London or to both. This power is necessary to allow the flexibility for the Crossrail project to be taken forward by these bodies, if that is in the best interest of delivering the project most efficiently.

To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question directly, he will know that it is intended that the Mayor and TfL will be responsible for the delivery of the project, and the powers in clause 59 might be needed to facilitate their taking the project forward. That said, I have to disappoint him because it is not yet clear which of the powers that are listed in subsection (7) will be devolved to the Mayor and/or TfL or whether the project governance arrangements that have been announced could be better delivered by other means. However, we believe it is right that the Secretary of State should be capable of devolving specific powers in the Bill if that is what is decided should happen.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I note the Minister’s comment that it is not yet clear whether the Government’s provisions in the Bill might be delivered by better means. Does he intend to come to that conclusion before the Bill completes its passage through the House?

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

I remain to be corrected, but when I referred to governance I did not mean anything in the Bill. Not every detail of governance is included in the Bill and I would not anticipate having to bring forward amendments to that effect.

To set my general remarks in context, it might help the Committee if I summarise the proposed project governance arrangements. Cross London Rail Links Ltd will continue as a project delivery vehicle for Crossrail. The Department for Transport will remain as a co-sponsor of the project and will form a joint sponsors board with Transport for London to supervise the project. The Department and TfL will execute a series of formal arrangements that will specify how the project will be taken forward. CLRL will become a wholly owned subsidiary of TfL, but with a level of independence needed to focus solely on delivery of the Crossrail project for its joint clients.

CLRL will have a board dominated by independent, non-executive directors chosen for their skills in delivering so-called mega-projects—not a phrase that I am particularly comfortable with— and free to appoint a world-class team at market rates. The written statement issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport that accompanied the publication of the heads of terms provides more detail about how the Department and the Mayor, as co-sponsors, will take the project forward. I hope that the explanation that I have given and the material with which I supplied each member of the Committee yesterday persuades hon. Members to accept the clause.

Clause 60

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 71, in clause 60, page 36, line 14, at end insert—

‘( ) The Secretary of State, upon making an application under subsection (1), shall give notice that he has made such an application to all those affected by such an application.

( ) The Secretary of State, upon receiving the decision of the justices under subsection (2), shall inform all those affected by the decision as to the outcome of the application made under subsection (1).’.

The clause sets out what will happen if a mistake is discovered in the deposited plans, or in the grandly named book of reference. The Secretary of State may apply to two suitable justices—however widely or tightly that may be defined—in order to correct any inaccuracies identified. A copy of the justices’s decision will be deposited in the House of Commons and in the offices of the relevant local authorities.

That is fine, but I do not think that it goes far enough. I fear that there may well be a situation whereby people affected by mistakes, and therefore changes to the deposited plans, are likely to remain blissfully unaware of them unless they are frequent visitors either to the Private Bill Office here or to the offices of their local authority.

To avoid such a circumstance arising, it seems only right that, if the Secretary of State is applying to the justices for the mistake to be remedied, those who will be affected by the change when the Secretary of State refers that case to the justices and sees their decision should be informed. That is what the amendment would do. It would ensure that those who are affected by the changes are informed that the changes are about to take place.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

The clause sets out the procedure for the correction of the deposited plans or the book of reference should any errors be found in the description of the land or the ownership or occupation of the land. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment, if approved, would require the Secretary of State, before making an application to two justices of the peace, to amend the deposited plans or book of reference deposited with the Bill to notify first those affected by the application. It would also require the Secretary of State to notify the same people of the justices’s decision.

I understand the intent behind the amendment. Those directly affected by any proposed amendment to the plans or book of reference should clearly be aware that such a change is being sought. However, I point out that that is already provided for in subsection (1), which requires the Secretary of State to give not less than 10 days’ notice to the owners and occupiers of the land. That is the subject of the proposed amendment, and, once an application has been determined and a certificate issued, copies of the certificate are lodged in Parliament and with the relevant local authority. I assure the hon. Gentleman, therefore, that the plans and book of reference cannot be amended in secret, without those most directly affected knowing about it. I had hoped that those provisions would not prove contentious, as similar provisions are common in private Acts for railways.

Peter Soulsby (Labour, Leicester South)

Give us an example.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

I understand that the clause is modelled on a similar clause in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I thought that the Minister, for the sake of novelty, was going to use the 1895 Act.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

The hon. Gentleman is just showing off now. With the explanation that I have given, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I think I will feel able to do that, but there was never any suggestion that either the hearing or the plans were to be conducted in secret. I take what subsection (1) says, but the amendment would add to that, because the clause implies that notice be given to the owners of the land that will be affected by the change. However, other people might also be affected. Also, as I understand it, the clause does not necessarily require that those people be informed of the decision, only that the decision be placed in the House of Commons or in local area offices.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

The hon. Gentleman refers to people, other than the owners of the property, who may be affected. He has not submitted an amendment to that effect, but if he had, is there not a danger that this would be a nebulous and never-ending process if every person who believed that they had been affected would have to be notified?

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Actually, the amendment states “all those affected”, so there is no question of it being nebulous or open-ended. There is a clear definition and I have tried in the amendment to find some way of defining who should be notified. I accept that “all those affected” might be a wide proposal and I have listened to the Minister and think that he is clearly trying to reassure me that my fears are ungrounded given what is already in the Bill. I, therefore, beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 61

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 72, in clause 61, page 36, line 33, after ‘by’, insert ‘registered’.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 73, in clause 61, page 37, line 3, after ‘office’, insert

‘or the office of its legal representative’.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Amendment No. 72 is very simple and needs little explanation. It would merely require documents that are to be served under the Crossrail Act to be sent by registered post. As the Committee will be aware, a registered item of mail is recorded in a register when it moves from a local post office, through the sorting office and on to its final destination. It incurs a small extra cost and provides the added comfort that the item’s location can be tracked through the postal system. Those of us who have just experienced the circumstances of October, including many of my constituents, will understand that, if the document is important, that protection would be not only relevant, but appropriate. It is a small measure that would ensure that the Secretary of State’s documents get to the people concerned, and the excuse that mail got lost in the post would not apply. I therefore hope that the amendment will find the Minister’s favour.

I will not spend long talking about amendment No. 73, whose purpose is to fill a small gap in the clause. The clause states that, for non-UK businesses, documents will be delivered to the company’s

“principal office within the United Kingdom.”

All I am suggesting is that there may be a situation in which the company in question does not have an office in this country. The amendment provides that the documents by delivered to the company’s legal representative in the UK and fills a minor gap. I will not press amendment No. 73 but I am interested to see why the Minister feels unable to accept amendment No. 72, if indeed that is his desire.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

The clause deals with the service of documents under the Bill. Its purpose is to set out how notices under the Bill should be served. Amendment No. 72 would require that any document served under the Bill by way of the postal system should be delivered by registered post. It is important to realise that that would apply to any person serving a notice, whether they were the Secretary of State, the nominated undertaker or any other member of the public serving a counter-notice. A number of provisions provide for other parties to serve notice on the nominated undertaker, and the amendment would require such notices to be served by registered post. Using some method of registered post might be sensible in some cases. It is in the interest of the person serving the notice to ensure that it reaches the intended recipient, as the person serving the notice would be disadvantaged if, in the event of a dispute, they could not later demonstrate that the notice had been properly served. The hon. Gentleman was right to point that out.

Registered post is more expensive than regular post and cost may be a consideration in some cases—presumably not for the Secretary of State, but possibly for private individuals. The person concerned should decide how they wish to proceed, bearing in mind that it may later be a matter of dispute before a court or other judicial body.

I am instinctively opposed to any measure that might incur the accusation of ushering in a nanny state, and I would have thought that a legislator prescribing the method of post that an individual should use to serve any particular notice is perilously close to territory that might lead the Daily Mail to take issue. That does not concern me, but it might concern Opposition Members.

Amendment No. 73 would allow documents to be served on legal representatives rather than a business partnership. However, clause 61(4) already allows the person on whom a notice would otherwise be served to specify an alternative address to which documents should be served. That allows a person to ask for notices to be served to the office of the legal representative if they so wish. I therefore consider the amendments unnecessary, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

It is quite amusing for Opposition Members to hear strictures about the nanny state. If the Minister follows that through, I look forward to his joining us more often in the Lobbies to vote against the provisions proposed by his Government. I think that the Daily Mail would rather like the amendment. It gives protection to the small person and allows them to know with absolute certainty that what is being served will reach its destination.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that any member of the public who is in a position where he or she has to serve notice in such a way will not understand what registered post is or the postal options available? Does he believe that we need to put instructions in the Bill about which envelope to use?

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I know that most of my constituents will not have that problem, so I will not be tempted down that route. We have all seen problems with the postal system and we have all lost important documents. I certainly have lost important documents in the postal system with no method of tracking them. I do not see that this minor technical change does anything other than add to the Bill. I am not tempted to withdraw the amendment and want to test the Committee’s will and press it to a vote.

Clause 62

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

I beg to move amendment No. 74, in clause 62, page 37, line 39, leave out subsection (5).

The clause is important because it deals with the process of arbitration and, in essence, it is a strong clause although hon. Members will have detected from my remarks throughout the Committee that I would like it to apply more widely.

The amendment would omit subsection (5) as I fail to see what it would add. It allows the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Communities and Local Government to combine to issue rules about the procedures that govern the process of arbitration.

The system for appointing an arbitrator is already set out clearly in the clause and I would have thought that the detailed rules of engagement should thereafter should be left to the arbitrator. If the Government intervene, it could be problematic; one of the parties to the dispute, namely the nominated undertaker, is an appointee of the Secretary of State and the others could be the Secretaries of State. How would the other party react if they knew that the adversary was writing the rule book?

I invite the Minister to clarify exactly why he thinks the Secretaries of State need the powers that I believe could, yet again, jeopardise the independence of the arbitration process, which other than that seems to be robust and appropriate.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

The Bill contains provisions for various matters to be referred to arbitration. For example, if the parties agree, disputes with highway authorities under schedule 3 and with various statutory undertakers under schedule 16 can be referred to arbitration. Subsection (5) allows the Secretaries of State for Communities and Local Government and for Transport acting jointly to make the rules governing such arbitration. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment would remove that power.

Subsection (5) follows a similar provision to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996. It address the possibility that it may be necessary to have special tailor-made provisions to address the settling of disputes arising under a scheme of the complexity, size and importance of the Crossrail project. Two Secretaries of State will have responsibility for that, rather than just the Secretary of State for Transport, and they will have to ensure that such rules are consistent with the principles of natural justice.

I am not saying that it will not be necessary to make such rules; however, it is important that the Secretaries of State should have the power to do so should it be considered that the need arises. The amendment would remove the power of the Secretaries of State for Communities and Local Government and for Transport to make rules about procedure in relation to arbitration under the Bill. The clause was applied successfully to former Conservative Secretaries of State and it worked extremely well under the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

I cannot think of any circumstances in which the clause could be invoked. Surely, the reality is that if there is arbitration it is because both parties agree to it. If the procedure is in some sense up in the air, and it has to be enforced by Secretaries of State against the will of one or perhaps even both parties, that runs wholly counter to the notion of what arbitration is, and should, do. Arbitration is about parties getting together on the basis that they agree not only on its application but presumably on the procedure for it. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon thinks that subsection (5) is redundant, and I agree with him. Nothing that the Minister has said has convinced us otherwise. One hopes that the provision will never be invoked, and I suspect that it never will be, because if such a dispute began the parties would not wish to go to arbitration, still less accept an arbitration procedure that was pushed upon them by Secretaries of State.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

May I clarify the position? The clause does not propose that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Transport should determine the result of arbitration; it is about those two Secretaries of State agreeing a procedure for arbitration.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

That goes to the nub of what we have discussed several times in our deliberations. The Secretary of State wants to take powers that will enable them to become party to a dispute and seek arbitration, yet at the same time try to affect the arbitration process or even make a judgment in the arbitration.

I have several times tried to convince myself of the validity of the Minister’s explanations, but I struggle even more in relation to this particular clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster made a telling intervention—it might conflict with other requirements on him but he made it nonetheless. Nothing that the Minister has said has reassured me that the provision is necessary. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act—an excellent piece of work by Conservative Secretaries of State—was used as a model for the Bill. However, as has been said, that does not mean that it should be slavishly followed. Consequently, I am not inclined to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 65

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—Financial provisions (disclosure of information)—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall publish all relevant details as to the moneys used to fund the construction and maintenance of Crossrail, beyond those monies as already provided by Parliament and set out in section 65(1).

(2) The Mayor of London shall, not less than 12 months after the granting of Royal Assent to this Act, publish and make available to all who are eligible and registered to vote in the London Mayoral or Greater London Authority elections, a statement indicating—

(a) the agreement he has undertaken and agreed with the Secretary of State for the proposals of building Crossrail, and

(b) the potential financial consequences of this agreement for London.

(3) The Secretary of State, after consultation with the Mayor of London and the Transport Commissioner for London, shall publish an annual statement setting out which bodies shall bear responsibility and liability for any costs associated with the building of Crossrail separately indicating the—

(a) costs to date, and

(b) projected costs to date.’.

New clause 3—Disposal of surplus property—

‘(1) Any land and or property acquired or used for the purposes of this Act, if deemed thereafter surplus to the needs of this Act, shall be disposed thereof.

(2) The proceeds of any disposals under subsection (1) shall be made available only for either—

(a) the purpose of paying compensation as required under this Act, or

(b) the purpose of paying for the construction of Crossrail or any such related purpose.’.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

The clause is the standard clause that appears in Bills that provide for the expenditure of public money. It simply provides that any expenditure by the Secretary of State under the Bill

“shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament”.

The content of the clause itself is entirely uncontentious.

With regard to the new clauses, the hon. Member for Wimbledon seeks to achieve transparency in the way that Crossrail will be funded. I am happy to say that the Government agree that transparency about Crossrail is desirable, as evidenced by the documentation that we have already made available, to which I referred in an earlier sitting. I can give comfort to the Committee that we intend to more information public in future. Yesterday, a copy of the heads of terms agreed by the Secretary of State for Transport and Transport for London were placed in the Library of the House. Some details have been redacted to protect commercial confidentiality, but the key terms of the deal between the co-sponsors of the project are now in the public domain. We and TfL need to produce the detailed arrangements that will support the heads of terms. That will involve the production of a large number of documents, which we expect to take several months to finalise. Our presumption is that those documents will be made public, again subject to the need protecting commercial interests.

Turning to new clause 2, the publication yesterday of the heads of terms means that the Government have in practice already published the information that proposed subsection (1) would require. May I make it clear that we intend to make public the relevant detailed agreements that will be negotiated over the coming months to implement the heads of terms? I believe that that will deal in large part with what proposed subsection (2) seeks to achieve. The issue of the wider financial consequences of Crossrail for London mentioned in proposed subsection (2) (b) is a matter for the Mayor. I expect that he would want to be very clear with Londoners about that, and he is subject to ongoing scrutiny by the London assembly.

Proposed subsection (3) refers to the desire for ongoing information about progress during construction. Our intention in that respect is captured by paragraph 3.11.2 of the heads of terms, which makes it clear that Cross London Rail Links Ltd will be required to publish information,

“to ensure a high level of transparency as to the progress and cost of the Crossrail Project.”

To conclude, while I sympathise with the sentiment underlying new clause 2, I think that it is unnecessary. I hope that I have made it clear that the Government and the Mayor recognise the importance of keeping the public well informed about the way in which Crossrail is taken forward, and that we are already taking steps to do that. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Wimbledon will not press the new clauses to a vote.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Certainly, we have already had one attempt this morning to introduce finance into our discussions, and the Minister congratulated the hon. Member for Richmond Park on the elegant manner in which she tried to inject the issue into this morning’s debate. I was tempted to speak in the debate on her amendment, but I resisted the temptation to do so, because I expected to have the opportunity to discuss my two new clauses and to speak on clause stand part.

As the Minister said, clause 65 provides for the expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State as a consequence of the Act to be paid for out of money provided by Parliament. It is a standard clause and we have no problems with it; we do not object to it. I have no doubt that, subject to commercial confidentiality, the Government are keen, or certainly have proved be keen, to provide details of the Crossrail package. In that spirit, I want to offer my thanks to the Minister both the briefing that he gave to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, who is a Liberal Democrat spokesman, and me. I thank him, too, for the package that he provided last night for Committee members—that package is now is in the Library. His spirit of transparency and generosity is appreciated. However—as the Minister would expect, there is always a “however”—the Bill gives explanations of the moneys provided by Parliament but not by other bodies. It does not provide, either, for updates to be delivered to Parliament on the subject of funding and costing. That was what I might have said about with the hon. Lady’s amendment this morning: although I thought it an excellent and elegant amendment, it was a one-off, and did not require an annual statement to be made to Parliament.

My new clauses go further than the hon. Lady’s amendment. We appreciate and accept the Minister’s generosity of spirit in making those disclosures, but it would be wrong of us as the Opposition not to ensure that adequate and appropriate protection is available. New clause 2 would provide such protection by making three provisions. First, it would ensure that the Secretary of State makes available to Parliament details of funding arrangements. Secondly, the Mayor of London, whoever that is at the time, will commit Londoners to extra expenditure and potential liability, and it is only right that he should provide them with a statement of the financial consequences. I am not sure that I share the Minister’s confidence that every person elected Mayor would be keen to provide such a statement. Thirdly, the new clause states that the Secretary of State shall, after consultation, provide an annual statement of costs and liability.

The justification for proposed subsection (1) is clear. The provision would allow us to scrutinise the elements of the package, to undertake proper risk analysis, and form a view on the financial probity of the providers, before considering the provisions behind the finance package and the financial model so that we could take taking a view on the associated risk. The Conservatives have said throughout the parliamentary process—I am sure that the Liberal Democrats have done so, too—that we support the principle of Crossrail, but that we would need to see the funding. The Minister has acted in a spirit of generosity and transparency, and it is appropriate that we enshrine that transparency in the Bill.

Proposed subsection (2) is simple. All councils have to provide an annual statement on how they deliver services and how those services are paid for. The subsection would not place any greater requirement on the Mayor of London. He is happy to commit Londoners to potential liability as a co-sponsor, so he should be happy to tell Londoners exactly what the financial consequences of his actions will be. I see no problem with that, and I am sure that Londoners would appreciate it.

Proposed subsection (3) would provide for an annual statement or update. As we embark on the building, maintenance and operation of Crossrail, we do need more than a snapshot in the House; we need dynamics. If there were a problem of overspend or—less likely, I suspect—underspend, or if was a delay, the new clause makes provision for Parliament to be notified of such things, which would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I have listened carefully to the Minister. We are grateful that he has deposited information with us, and we thank him sincerely for doing so. At the same time, I hope that he recognises that it is the Opposition’s duty to make sure that his spirit of generosity is not transitory and that it is enshrined in one of the most important parts of the Bill so that it will be available for future scrutiny. I shall therefore seek to divide the Committee on new clause 2.

New clause 3 is a simple but important housekeeping measure. This is an exceptional project, and it requires exceptional powers and exceptional discretion. We have recognised that spirit throughout. The Secretary of State has been granted powers of compulsory acquisition both within and without the scope of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965; she has been granted rights of easement and licences; and she has been granted powers of purchase along the deemed route within and without the limits of deviation. We all accept that that is necessary and desirable.

After Crossrail is built, however, there will undoubtedly be land excess to the needs of the Crossrail operation. I am sure that any member of this Committee, particularly those who served on the Select Committee, can think of petitions they have heard where the land that is going to be used for the building of Crossrail will not be necessary for its operation. The Government and the operators of Crossrail will not necessarily want to be a landlord so that excess land should be disposed of. The proceeds from the disposal of the surplus lands should be directed to reducing the overall costs and funding the compensation payments. This is a sensible housekeeping measure and I commend it to the Committee.

Susan Kramer (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

I will be very brief. Obviously I was sad that those on the Conservative Front Bench could not see their way to supporting my amendment because it gave the advantage to the House of being able to give its assent to the final package on Crossrail. I, too, am very impressed by the generous amount of information that has been provided by the Minister. However, there is an issue of underlying principle that is worth establishing. We have noticed that every time there is an issue here, reference goes back to the channel tunnel rail link and no doubt future Bills will all talk about what was in this Bill. Establishing the ongoing principle on the face of the Bill that information should be disclosed on a regular basis is probably no bad item to have.

Again, although we all have a great deal of confidence in this Minister, the project runs way out into the future. It would be sad to give leeway to others to provide less disclosure than the current Government are willing and able to do. Although I shall support the new clause tabled by Conservative Members, if for some reason it should fail, will the Minister consider these matters and reflect his own attitude towards transparency in a clause that he might bring forward at a future date to ensure that providing information is an ongoing principle?

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

I apologise to the Committee for detaining hon. Members for perhaps longer than they might have hoped, but financial accountability and especially annual reporting are vital matters. I want to talk briefly about why I believe them to be so important. Most people know that my background is in a business environment. Annual reporting creates a discipline that simply is not created in any other way. It creates an accountability that gives credibility to a project.

The second thing that annual reporting provides is the ability to put things right if they are not going right. We have seen too many projects from Governments of all political persuasions that have gone wrong because they have not been properly managed. It is all very well seeing a problem, putting money into it, and, finally, setting targets, but that is not the secret of management. The secret of management is managing the process thereafter. Very often it does not mater whether the decision made about a specific issue falls within a set of parameters, but it clearly matters if it is managed, fine tuned, tweaked and the subject of drastic effort in a way that changes a process that is clearly going wrong. Financial reporting allows a process to be looked at in a clearer way than almost any other mechanism.

As I said, a company would have to proceed along the lines that I have described, but it is not clear that that applies in this case, even if we bear in mind the constitution of the package that we are talking about with regard to Crossrail. I want to ensure that it does apply. Putting the new clause into the Bill offers a protection not only for respective Governments—because it is likely that this process will be undertaken by respective Governments as it goes on into the future—but for the taxpayer, who will contribute sizeably to the project. It is not only the taxpayer in London who will contribute, but also those throughout the rest of the country.

I therefore urge the Minister, whom I know to be keen on transparent government, to consider the process, even if on this occasion he does not accept it. At the very least, will he come back on Report with a mechanism that would accede to this request, which I am sure that he feels in his heart is sensible?

Mark Field (Conservative, Cities of London and Westminster)

Just for once, let us be wise before rather than after the event. The Minister and I have been in Parliament for exactly the same time, six and a half years, and there is a sense of dÃ(c)jà vu as I consider many of the Bills on which I served on the Committee.

For example, the first Bill Committee that I sat on was the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; we pointed out, time and again, the enormous costs that would go into setting up the associated agency. On the Enterprise Act 2002, we repeatedly talked about the risk of allowing too many 20-somethings to become bankrupt, but all that came to pass. On the Licensing Act 2003, I talked endlessly about the notion of 24-hour drinking and the risible idea that bringing in more flexible licensing laws would somehow lead to a Parisian drinking culture on the streets of London and of the country. Likewise, on the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, we endlessly talked about the spiralling costs, and, of course, they are precisely what have come to pass.

Our biggest concern in relation to Crossrail is not the idea of it, as the project is something that we very much support, but the notion of blight if the proper funding is not put into place. I fear that, notwithstanding the assurances made by the Minister and the Prime Minister over the last six or seven weeks, the funding package for Crossrail is a good deal less robust than we would like it to be. It is for that reason that I totally support new clause 2, and my hon. Friends have put forward robust reasoning for it. I fear, however, that if we do not get this right and we do not get the proper funding in place, there will in years to come be a sort of half-Crossrail that will not do anything like as much as it is planned to do at this stage; there will be a phase 1, with phase 2 or 3 deep in the future, which will never come to pass because of the enormous, spiralling costs.

We need to get this right, and the worst of all worlds, as I have said, is that countless numbers of constituents, not only in my constituency, but in dozens across London and the south-east, will have their lives blighted by being on the Crossrail route, with very little prospect of the project coming to fruition, unless we get the funding right. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to ensuring that, for once, we are genuinely wise before rather than after the event.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

I have already made some comments about new clause 2. Shortly, I would like to make some comments in response to the comments by the hon. Member for Wimbledon about new clause 3.

First, I would like to respond to what the hon. Member for Richmond Park has said. I do not feel that a commitment in the Bill to the kind of reporting that she is looking for would be appropriate in this case. I understand why she and other members of the Committee have belittled the notion of always using the precedent of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 to justify a particular clause in this Bill, but let me suggest a corollary of that. Can she, or indeed any other member of the Committee, name a piece of legislation about a large infrastructure project where this kind of reporting, aimed at creating the level of transparency that we all want to see, has been included in the Bill? It is a rhetorical question; I would be very surprised if there was an answer.

Mr. Binley rose—

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

We may actually have an answer.

Brian Binley (Conservative, Northampton South)

The Minister challenged us so may I ask him whether he thinks that, although there is no precedent, it is time that we set one? That is the point about this new clause. We want to improve government and I am sure that he also wants to improve it. On that basis, and in the spirit of going forward to ensure that we have more transparent government, surely he would accept that point.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

There is a good reason why such commitments have not been included in previous legislation. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that I am not about to make political history and create a precedent with the Crossrail Bill.

On the comments of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, I am clearly far more optimistic than he is about the robustness of the financial package that has been put together. Time will tell, but I think that the amount of work that has been put into creating that financial package will show in time that that package is extremely impressive and, I must say, robust.

The purpose of the hon. Member for Wimbledon in proposing new clause 3 is to ensure that

“Any land or property...if deemed thereafter surplus to the needs of this Act, shall be disposed thereof”

and the proceeds will be used for Crossrail-related purposes. I can assure him that this new clause is unnecessary. The Secretary of State has already given a number of undertakings on the matter of the land disposal policy. These form part of the environmental minimal requirements and she has given undertakings to Parliament on the enforcement of those requirements. The relevant paragraph in that policy is as follows:

“Where any land which has been acquired and used for the construction of Crossrail is:

(i) no longer required for the satisfactory completion of the Crossrail works;

(ii) not required in connection with the operation of Crossrail;

it will be sold subject firstly to the Crichel Down Rules 2004 and to the extent that this does not apply, then in accordance with this policy”.

As I am sure the hon. Member for Wimbledon will recall, those rules provide for the circumstances in which land acquired under threat of compulsion but no longer required for public purposes will be offered back to the former owner. The requirement under the rules to offer land back is not unqualified.

The terms of the Crossrail land disposal policy were published in advance of the Select Committee’s consideration of the Bill. Therefore, they have formed the backdrop for many agreements reached with persons whose property would be subject to compulsory purchase as a consequence of the Bill.

On the question of the use of the proceeds, I assure the hon. Member for Wimbledon that it is integral to the funding package announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last month that the proceeds will be applied for Crossrail purposes. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, however, the timing of those receipts is unlikely to marry with the timing of payments of compensation and therefore they will go towards the repayment of Transport for London borrowing to finance the project.

The heads of terms between the Department for Transport and Transport for London, setting out the details of the funding arrangements, were published yesterday, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon will know. He will find in the table on uses and sources of funds, at paragraph 4.1.3 of those heads of terms, that it is envisaged that £500 million will be raised from sales of surplus land and property. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider not pressing the new clause to a Division.

New Clause 1

New Clause 2

New Schedule 1

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

I want to take this opportunity to thank you, Lady Winterton, for your service as Chair to the Committee. As I predicted in our first sitting, it has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. You have been extremely clear and genuinely helped the progress of the Bill. I also thank the Clerk, the Hansard team, the police officers who have managed to keep order, my own officials whose advice has been absolutely invaluable and, of course, my private secretary, Sandra St. Louis.

I noticed the hon. Member for Wimbledon looking with envy at the ranks of officials who offer me advice. May I thank him for his very positive approach to the Bill? It was a pleasure to debate some of the issues with him and with the hon. Member for Richmond Park. I am not sure whether it is normally done, but when there are Whips around it is never a bad thing to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside for his contribution and help throughout this process. If I have missed anyone I apologise.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

May I echo the Minister’s remarks? It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Lady Winterton. We have undertaken these proceedings in an orderly and timely way. I am grateful for your forbearance to those of us who jumped up at the wrong time and in the wrong place. I think that the Committee has been characterised by the words, “Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act”, “compensation”, “arbitration” and, occasionally, “accountability”.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South)

And “any other relevant parties”.

Stephen Hammond (Conservative, Wimbledon)

Indeed. According to my count, the Minister kindly said that if I withdrew three of my amendments, he would bring them back on Report. On that basis, I count the score as Opposition 3: Government 104. None the less, I pay tribute to the Minister for his genuine spirit of transparency in obtaining information for us and debating with us. Like him, I thank the Clerk for his invaluable help and assistance. I thank the Hansard reporters and the police. I thank my colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster, for Ilford, North, for Northampton, South, and for Rugby and Kenilworth.

Finally, I thank those who have given the Minister divine inspiration, which has been extremely helpful in moving the Committee forward. In the same vein of tribute, I thank my researcher, who has given me divine inspiration at times. I calculated that as Opposition 1: Government 6. These proceedings have been useful and helpful, and Members on both sides of the Committee will agree that we wish to give the Bill speedy, yet proper, scrutiny in the House. I think that we can be pleased with what we have tried to do in Committee.

Susan Kramer (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

I will be brief, but I should like to take the opportunity to express my thanks for your patience and generosity, Lady Winterton. I know, from my little experience in working on such Bills, that it is genuinely appreciated. I wish to express that same sense of appreciation to the Public Bill Office and to the Clerk. They make a great deal of difference when one is a novice. Their assistance in getting things drafted, even elegantly drafted, was valuable. I thank the Hansard reporters and the police. I would thank my colleagues, but that is somewhat tricky under the circumstances. I express thanks, however, to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington who covered for me when I was unavoidably absent for several hours. I appreciate his generosity, as he acted purely from kindness of spirit.

The views that have been expressed are all positively in favour of Crossrail. That is an important message that needs to go out as the Bill makes its progress through the House. A number of markers have been put down, particularly on disclosure and the wish of the House to know the details and to understand the financial structure of the Bill. Such things should not be forgotten, even though those votes did not necessarily carry the day. I thank the Minister for his willingness to provide information and to be supportive. I only wish that all the Ministers with whom I have dealt in my two years in the House took a similar latitude.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

Before I put the final question, on behalf of everyone who has been thanked, may I thank members of the Committee for their thanks? It has been a pleasure to chair the Bill. We have debated in great good spirit and a lot of kindly humour, and it has genuinely been a very pleasant experience. It has also been interesting to watch a Minister on his maiden voyage in Committee, and we wish him well for the future: the same goes for the Opposition spokespeople. We are always indebted to the Clerks Department and to our Clerk in particular for his very valuable advice, to the reporters of the Official Report and to the police who have ensured that nothing untoward happened in the Committee.