 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Crossrail Bill |
Crossrail Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:John Benger, Mick Hillyard,
Committee Clerks
† attended
the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 22 November 2007(Morning)[Ann Winterton in the Chair]Crossrail Bill9
am
The
Chairman:
I wish the Committee good morning, in spite of
the fact that it is not a very good one. Before we
proceed, may I make it clear that it is in order for hon. Gentlemen to
remove their jackets, although I see that someone in the Committee has
rather taken that for granted? I will be grateful if, in future, hon.
Members would realise that permission should be
given.
First, I remind
hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a
general rule, I do not intend to call starred amendments. However, you
will have noticed that because of a printing error, some amendments
that were tabled in time for selection appear as starred. Secondly,
hon. Members are notified that there is a money resolution and a Ways
and Means resolution relating to the Bill, copies of which are
available in the
room.
That if
proceedings on the Crossrail Bill are not completed at this
day’s sitting, the Committee do
meet—
(a) on
Thursdays when the House is sitting at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m.,
and
(b) on Tuesdays
when the House is sitting at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00
p.m.
I welcome you to
the Chair, Lady Winterton. I am sure that it will be a great pleasure
to serve under your chairmanship for the length of this Committee.
Although I have served on many Public Bill Committees, this is the
first that I have led on behalf of the Government. In that respect, I
am something of a Public Bill Committee virgin. I trust that you will
be gentle with me in the sittings
ahead.
I also welcome
all hon. Members to the Committee. I particularly
welcome the hon. Member for Northampton, South and my hon. Friend the
Member for Leicester, South who were members of the Crossrail Select
Committee and whose agreement to serve on this Committee says a great
deal about their personal courage and their devotion to this subject.
If in future we see them on “Celebrity Mastermind”, I
suspect that we know what their specialist subject will
be.
The motion will
allow the Committee to meet at 10.30 am and 4 pm on Tuesdays and 9 am
and 1 pm on Thursdays. The order of consideration will allow for
the consideration of schedules immediately after the
consideration of the relevant clauses. For example, schedule
1 will be considered immediately after clause 1. I am sure
that no hon. Member wishes to see the Bill unnecessarily delayed.
Bearing in mind that it has already been the subject of 21 months of
Select Committee
scrutiny, to which some hon. Members present can attest, I confirm that
the Government are happy to offer however much time is required for
consideration by this
Committee.
Copies of
my recent letters relating to the Bill and in some cases to the project
itself are available from the table in the centre of the
room.
Stephen
Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con): Following the Minister, I wish
to welcome you to the Chair, Lady Winterton. We look forward very much
to serving under your chairmanship. I echo the welcome to all members
of the Committee given by the Minister and suspect that all hon.
Members present want to see the Bill passed speedily through its
Committee stage. None the less, there is some scrutiny to do and
Conservative Members look forward to taking part in the debates in
whatever number of sittings is required. We support the sittings motion
and look forward to getting on to the business of the
day.
Susan
Kramer (Richmond Park) (LD): I echo the sentiments that
have been expressed by other hon. Members, but do not want to take up
the Committee’s time. I also echo the thanks to the Select
Committee, which has done a great deal of work on the Bill. What is
left to do is relatively limited, thank
goodness.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
proceedings on the Bill be taken in the following order, namely, Clause
1; Schedule 1; Clause 2; Schedule 2; Clause 3; Schedule 3; Clause 4;
Schedule 4; Clause 5; Schedule 5; Clause 6; Schedule 6; Clauses 7 to
10; Schedule 7; Clauses 11 to 15; Schedule 8; Clause 16; Schedule 9;
Clause 17; Schedule 10; Clauses 18 to 45; Schedule 11; Clause 46;
Schedule 12; Clauses 47 and 48; Schedule 13; Clause 49; Schedule 14;
Clauses 50 to 57; Schedule 15; Clause 58; Schedule 16; Clauses 59 to
66; new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the
Bill.—[Mr.
Harris.]
Clause 1Construction
and maintenance of scheduled
works
Mr.
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 4, in
clause 1, page 2, line 9, at
end insert ‘not exceeding three
metres’.
The
clause is the first of four dealing with the works, works permissions
and works authorisations necessary to build Crossrail. The Bill vests
those permissions and powers in the nominated undertaker. The amendment
deals with clause 1(4), which
states:
“In
constructing or maintaining any of the scheduled works, the nominated
undertaker may deviate vertically from the level shown for that work on
the deposited sections to any extent
downwards.”
Our amendment
would add the words “not exceeding 3 metres”.
We are concerned that the
subsection, as so worded, may not confront some of the realities of
construction. Might there not be sections of the route in which to
allow any deviation downwards would mean that the scheduled works would
hit, touch or interfere with all sorts of other infrastructures? Why is
there any need
for unlimited downward deviation and to what purpose? The limits of
deviation are set in other paragraphs in the Bill. Consistently during
the sittings of the Committee, I will wish to test why the Government
seek to take powers outside either the scheduled route or the limits of
deviation.
I point out
that subsection (3) gives the nominated undertaker the power to deviate
laterally
“to any extent
within the limits of deviation for that
work”.
So why not deviate
vertically downwards to the limits of deviation for that work? Might it
not be sensible to so limit that downward vertical deviation as well? I
look forward to the Minister’s reassurance as to why the
Government wish to take those
powers.
Mr.
Harris:
The limits of deviation are well precedented in
earlier private Acts for railways. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act
1996 was the last hybrid Bill for a railway project; mention of that
Bill will recur many times during our debates and in the
Department’s model clauses for orders made under the Transport
and Works Act 1992. They reflect the fact that the design of Crossrail
is only at an outline stage; the detailed design will come later.
Therefore, flexibility is essential. The nominated undertaker will, in
any event, be bound by the environmental minimum requirements, which
are a set of arrangements that will regulate Crossrail
construction.
The
general limit of deviation of 3 m upwards, or 6 m in specific
instances, is there to protect people with surface interests who need
the comfort that noise and movement will not affect their properties.
Downward deviation, for obvious reasons, would tend to make such
concerns diminish and, therefore, there is no need to put a downward
limit on deviation in the way that the amendment would do. With that
assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw
the
amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
I am interested in what the Minister says, but
would he would clarify one more point? He ended by saying that downward
deviation would not incur the same noise problems that upward deviation
from the scheduled route might. For example, if the scheduled route
were 3 m from the surface, a downward deviation beyond the
limits—which the clause particularly addresses—might well
incur noise issues. Will he reassure the Committee that, without
putting a limit to vertical downward deviation, there will not be
potential noise problems for the
public?
Mr.
Harris:
I am happy to clarify the matter as best I can.
Clearly, in a project of this size, our priority must be to protect the
interests and the environment of people who live or work at the surface
of the Crossrail route. Downward deviation from the existing plans will
have far less a detrimental effect on the environment than would upward
deviation. As I have already said, that is well precedented; the factor
was specifically written into the 1996 Act simply because of that
concern. I fail to see how a downward deviation of greater than 3 m
could have any greater detrimental effect or could not have a more
beneficial environmental effect on people living and working on the
surface at the point of Crossrail
construction.
Mr.
Brian Binley (Northampton, South) (Con): The concern
arises from the fact, which was drummed into us on many occasions
during the Select Committee’s consideration of this hybrid Bill,
that noise and vibration are not necessarily dependent upon depth, but
on the structure, the geology and other matters of that kind. A deeper
level of boring can occasionally cause more problems for people living
above it than a higher level. The issue is not that simple and I
understand why there could be confusion. It took me a long time to get
my head around it, and we had two years at it. With that in mind and
because Crossrail travels through London, many people were concerned
about vibration, noise and the impact on their daily lives. This was an
important issue. Consequently, I would hate to think that we were going
to open up that issue again. Will the Minister consider that
point?
Mr.
Harris:
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.
As I said in my opening remarks, he and my hon. Friend the Member for
Leicester, South have almost literally an in-depth knowledge of the
Crossrail project. He is right to suggest that depth alone will not
necessarily alleviate the effects on the surface of vibration or noise.
However, neither will deviation downwards have a detrimental effect on
the environment at the surface. The hon. Gentleman is right to point
out that there are other things to consider such as the geology of the
area. However, I fail to see how a downward deviation of greater than 3
m would have a detrimental effect on the environment.
We
are at a very early stage and the work has not yet
started. It is simply a standard procedure in a Bill of this kind to
allow some flexibility. That is all we are asking for. There is no
intention on the part of the engineers or the Crossrail team
deliberately to need that extra deviation. However, in a project of
this scale, possibly a year or two before work begins, that discretion
is needed in the Bill. As I have said, it has always been a part of
these hybrid Bills and I expect it will be a part of all hybrid Bills
in future. On that note, I ask the hon. Member for Wimbledon to
withdraw his
amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
I accept that this an
exceptional Bill and will require some exceptional conditions to be
placed in it. I accept that there is a need for flexibility. What is a
well established principle, as the Minister has said, is that there is
a deposited route and a deposited schedule of works. There is also a
deviation that allows flexibility and there is a limit to that
deviation. The amendment would introduce some restriction on works
outside that limit of deviation. Although I am happy to accept the
Minister’s reassurance, we will test this point a number of
times in Committee because there are bounds to flexibility. I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
9.15
am
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Stephen
Hammond:
I do not wish to detain the Committee long, but
this clause is important. It authorises the nominated undertaker, who
may or may
not be the Secretary of State, or a nominated undertaker nominated by
the Secretary of State, to construct and maintain the works necessary
for Crossrail. Those works are specified in the Bill as the scheduled
works and some of the clause’s subsections, as we have just
discussed, show that there is no limit to the specification of
deviation. I return to the remark that I have just made and to a trend
that is reflected throughout the Bill. In a number of clauses, powers
are granted to deviate from the line of build without limit, and that
principle starts in this clause. We will want to test that principle
several times throughout the Committee’s proceedings.
We entirely accept that this is
an exceptional project, for which flexibility will certainly be
required. However, those powers and such flexibility must be reasonable
in both effect and extent. We are concerned that in several cases that
is not so. I am happy that the Minister has been able to reassure the
Committee on the clause, but I am doubtful that he will be able to do
so for all the clauses as we
proceed.
Mr.
Harris:
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that
Crossrail is an exceptional project. However, it is not an
unprecedented project and I will refer many times during these debates
to exactly the same provisions that were in the Channel Tunnel Rail
Link Act 1996. Clause 1 authorises the construction and maintenance by
the nominated undertaker of the Crossrail works specified in schedule
1. It is a standard clause, similar to those found in all works
Bills.
The clause
also sets out the permitted limits of deviation from the siting of
works as shown on the relevant plans. Those limits are well precedented
in earlier private Acts for railways and reflect the fact that the
design of Crossrail is of necessity at outline stage only. Detailed
design will come later, and therefore some flexibility is essential.
That said, the nominated undertaker will be bound by the environmental
minimum requirements, a set of parameters that will control most of the
construction of
Crossrail.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 1
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
1 agreed
to.
Clause 2
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 23 November 2007 |