House of Commons - Crossrail - First Special Report

Select Committee on Crossrail First Special Report

3 Challenges faced by the Committee

22. Having been appointed in December 2005, the Committee first met in public on 17 January 2006 to begin the task of hearing the case of each Petitioner. This task continued for 22 months, with the Committee being called to meet up to eight times each week. The Committee sat for 84 days in public meetings, heard 205 Petitioners (in total) and received 413 volumes of written evidence. Members of the Committee worked exceptionally hard to fit this demanding timetable into their other parliamentary duties.

23. At this point, the Committee wishes to place on record its sincere thanks to the staff in the House connected with the Bill who assisted Members, Petitioners and the Promoter during the lengthy committee stage. We much appreciated the help, advice and services, provided by the staff of Clerks, Serjeant at Arms and Refreshment Departments. We also wish to thank the security staff and the cleaners who all worked hard to help us in this important task.

An unfamiliar process

24. Before we set out the significant issues that arose during the Committee's hearings we wish to make a few general points about the process itself. Firstly, the public has come to expect consultation documents from Government departments regarding new pieces of legislation. They are less familiar with the hybrid bill process. Many members of the public were sceptical that by depositing a petition they could have an opportunity to convince a parliamentary committee to change the Bill on their behalf. We trust that the extensive information and assistance provided to the public by the House and by the Government enabled all those who wished to engage in this process to do so.

25. We were also concerned that, as one might expect in the case of a Bill of this size, the only organisation placed to answer detailed public enquiries about the Bill was the company, Cross London Rail Links (the company formed to promote the Bill). In relation to certain cases put to us, we have highlighted our dissatisfaction at the lack of information given at times by the Promoter to the public during the consultation periods.[19]

Instructions given to the Committee

26. The House of Commons agreed five Instructions to the Committee during the last 18 months. These instructions had a variety of purposes and are therefore included in full in the appendix to this Report.

First Instruction

27. The first Instruction (agreed on 19 July 2005)[20] required us to report matters relating to the environmental impact of the railway to the House. It also served to set out what the Committee should consider to be part of the principle of the Bill. The practice of the House of Commons prevents a select committee on a hybrid bill from considering matters which affect the principle of the bill. The first Instruction thus further restricted the issues on which we could hear petitions. There was some confusion during the debate on the Instruction that unfortunately led some members of the public to petition against aspects of the Bill we had been instructed not to consider.

28. It is our view that this Instruction, although intended to provide clarity to the Committee was essentially unhelpful and served to confuse and potentially disadvantage members of the public. We recommend that future hybrid bill committees be allowed to decide what constitutes the principle of the Bill without such an Instruction.

Second and Third Instructions

29. The first Instruction was later clarified by two further Instructions which were passed by the House of Commons on 12 January 2006.[21] The second Instruction allowed us to consider petitions on the first set of Additional Provisions that the Government introduced. The Additional Provisions changed the detail of the project and were a result of discussions with interested parties following the Bill's introduction in 2005.

30. The third Instruction allowed the Committee to consider certain issues raised by Petitioners which we would not otherwise have been able to consider, namely whether Crossrail should extend to Reading or Ebbsfleet. The location of the Crossrail termini identified in the Bill (Maidenhead in the West and Abbey Wood in the South East) had been specified under the first Instruction to be treated as part of the established principle of the Bill. The third Instruction was therefore necessary to enable the Committee to hear Petitioners on the issue of a possible extension of the line to Reading or Ebbsfleet.

31. It is important to note that the third Instruction did not allow us to consider the above issues with a view to amending the Bill. We were permitted to consider such issues for the purpose of reporting to the House of Commons whether there appeared to be a case for such an extension being the subject of an application for an Order under section 1 of the Transport and Works Act 1990. Any such Order would have to be taken forward independently of the Bill process.

Fourth Instruction

32. The fourth Instruction, agreed on 31 October 2006, empowered the Committee to consider the Additional Provisions that were introduced to:

a) reflect the Committee's interim conclusions announced in July 2006 and make changes to the project in light of Petitioners' concerns;

b) allow development of the project in light of discussions with stakeholders;

c) reduce the project cost; or

d) make minor technical changes.

Fifth Instruction

33. The fifth and final Instruction was agreed on 25 April 2007 and was brought forward at the specific request of the Committee. Our interim conclusions of July 2006 covered a range of issues, which included accepting the case for constructing a station at Woolwich. We took the view that the Government, as the Promoter of the scheme, should bring forward an Additional Provision to add to the project a station at Woolwich. We address this matter in detail later in our Report but we note here that this Instruction was the result of months of repeated requests to the Secretary of State. This Instruction enabled the Committee to consider an Additional Provision for such a station.

An Impartial Committee

34. Members of the Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill were selected because they did not have any local or personal interests in the Bill ensuring that they could judge impartially each case before them. The Committee ensured that all the information provided during Committee meetings was accessible to the public. We also insisted in committee that all legal Counsel and their experts explained the situation to us from first principles. We found that on several occasions, a Petitioner's original concerns dissipated when the issue was clarified by the relevant expert witness.

19 Paragraph 10860 [Chairman]; Paragraph 10917 [Ms J Cove]; Back

20 Votes and Proceedings, Tuesday 19 July 2005, p143 Back