Previous SectionIndexHome Page

Crossrail Bill (Carry Over)

2.1 pm

The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I beg to move,

I believe that people realise that Crossrail is a project of national, not only regional, significance. The strategic transport improvements that it brings will be experienced across the country and the scheme will be a catalyst for safeguarding a national economy that is strongly related to the performance of our capital city.

Today, I simply wish to dwell on the parliamentary procedures of the carry-over motion rather than the detail and substance of the Bill. However, I shall say a few more introductory words. In transport benefits, Crossrail will enable better access to the capital for the hundreds of thousands of workers who commute into London every day. It will provide strategic interchanges for local, national and international business and leisure travellers. In economic benefits, London plays a major role in supporting regional economies and jobs, through commuting, product and service purchases, fiscal transfer and economic activity.

The Bill was introduced on 22 February, and has subsequently been through several essentially procedural steps. When the Bill was deposited, it was supported by a regulatory impact assessment, a race equality impact assessment, a book of reference, an estimate of costs, an environmental statement and a non-technical summary of that statement, parliamentary plans and sections, a European Court of Human Rights statement, a housing statement and explanatory notes. Some 4,600 landowners notices were served and approximately 400 street and footpath notices were put up. The environmental statement comprises some 3,700 pages and nine volumes and is supported by a further 14,000 pages of specialist technical reports. The book of reference contains more than 5,000 entries, which would need to be re-checked if the Bill had to be deposited again because the book of reference must be no more than 28 days old at the time of deposit.

The scheme as defined by the Bill, including the parliamentary plans and sections, a schedule of works and so on, represents the culmination of the best part of four years of work by Cross London Rail Links, which employs around 100 staff and 90 consultants. For those who are interested in such data, around 14 tonnes of material were distributed to 140 different locations to meet the requirements of Standing Orders, which include ensuring that documents are available for public inspection locally. Notices were also published to advertise the introduction of the Bill twice in the weeks of 21 February and 28 February in The Times, Evening Standard and 18 local newspapers along the route.
 
7 Apr 2005 : Column 1605
 

The Bill was deposited and secured its First Reading, during which the whole route was safeguarded. Subsequently, because it had already been consulted on but was not part of the final declared route, the Abbeywood to Ebbsfleet route was also safeguarded. On 10 March, examiners—Clerks of the House who check compliance with Standing Orders—looked at the Bill, took evidence that notices had been served, documents deposited and advertisements made. They received no objections but they reported that the Bill had failed to meet Standing Orders relating to the time of deposit and notices.

On 17 March, the Commons Standing Orders Committee met to consider the examiners' report and hear from the Government's agent why it was desirable, especially to minimise the period of uncertainty for those affected by the works, for the Bill to proceed as soon as possible despite the fact that it had not fulfilled the Standing Orders. The Committee decided to dispense with Standing Orders on timing, thus allowing the Bill to proceed. A similar procedure was undertaken in the other place by its Standing Orders Committee on 22 March.

The purpose of the motion is simply to ensure that the Bill can be carried over for consideration in the next Parliament and that all the work that I have described and that has been done thus far is not wasted. Carrying a Bill over an election is feasible and, indeed, precedented for a hybrid Bill. There will be no curtailing of appropriate scrutiny. There will be the usual opportunities for hon. Members to debate the principle of the Bill on Second Reading, and for their constituents to be heard in front of a Select Committee composed of hon. Members of this House, and subsequently in a Select Committee of the other place. The Select Committee will sit in a quasi-judicial capacity and have the opportunity to hear a range of submissions in considering petitions against the Bill.

If the Bill is not carried over, despite the cross-party support and that of the overwhelming majority of the business community in London, which has been vocal and forthcoming in its backing for the project, we would have to redo all that I described—for example, serving approximately 5,000 landowners with notices, advertising in the press and updating all the documents required at the time of deposit, thus doing again all the referencing to check everything that is entailed. Whatever people feel about the merits of the project, I do not believe that anyone is especially wedded to the notion that, purely because of the interruption—for want of a better word—of an election, the Bill should not be carried over and presented for Second Reading at the earliest opportunity. Several people are directly affected by the Bill and it would not be good public policy to make them undergo all those processes again and suffer the subsequent uncertainty.

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): The Minister knows that I support the Bill and the carry-over motion. Can he offer us some hope that the Bill will be introduced quickly in the new Parliament?

Mr. McNulty: That point is central to carrying over a Bill. It will be reintroduced at the earliest opportunity after the interruption of an election. I hope that I can say
 
7 Apr 2005 : Column 1606
 
that with confidence, given the support throughout the House for the measure. I shall be candid and say that, of course, there is the little matter of the £10 billion price tag that comes with it, and a good deal of continuing work needs to be done to ascertain how the costs will be apportioned, but I assure my hon. Friend that we fully intend to present the Bill for its Second Reading and subsequent stages at the earliest opportunity. Given all the momentum and the widespread support that the project commands in London and beyond, in both Houses and the business community, and, not least, the impact on those who could be affected by the process, the sooner we move, post election, to Second Reading, the better.

Mike Gapes (Ilford, South) (Lab/Co-op): My hon. Friend mentioned those who will be affected. Three stations and the loop will be affected in my constituency. Clearly, I have many constituents who will be subjected to some uncertainties if there are undue delays. I therefore urge my hon. Friend not only to press for Second Reading as soon as possible, but to expedite the whole process so that there is no undue delay and uncertainty for my constituents.

Mr. McNulty: I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) the same assurance that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn): we fully intend to bring the Bill back as early as possible, should the interruption to which I referred have the outcome that we anticipate. Even if it does not, however, I am confident that whichever party forms the next Government will seek to bring these measures forward, because everyone has said that they understand the importance of the project for the capital and for the capital's contribution to the wider national economy. So, for the reasons that I have outlined, I commend the order to the House.

2.10 pm

Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the motion in the way he has. He used rose-tinted language designed to give the impression that the Government were engaged in frenetic activity on the Crossrail project. He even used the expression "secure the First Reading", as though that were a really burdensome hurdle to overcome, when we all know that it is the most formal part of parliamentary procedure.

The reality of the Bill and the carry-over motion before us is best encapsulated in a short piece in today's Evening Standard under the by-line of Ross Lydall, its local government correspondent. It says:

which the Minister mentioned again today—


 
7 Apr 2005 : Column 1607
 

It is salutary to remind ourselves that the last time the House carried over a hybrid Bill from one Parliament to another was when we were dealing with the Channel Tunnel Bill, another project that was not exactly renowned for its sound financial footing.


Next Section IndexHome Page