Schedule
2
Works:
further and supplementary
provisions
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 26, in
schedule 2, page 63, line 39, leave
out from ‘arbitration’ to end of line
40.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 27, in schedule 2, page 67,
line 7, leave out from ‘arbitration’ to end of
line
8.
Stephen
Hammond:
These amendments and their purposes are
identical. Amendment No. 26 deals with disputes over highway access and
amendment No. 27
deals with disputes over the discharge of water. Amendment No. 26
proposes that the relevant subsection should read:
“Any dispute with a
highway authority under this paragraph shall, if the parties agree, be
referred to
arbitration”.
That
would remove the ultimate power for dispute resolution from the hands
of the Secretary of State. Disputes should be referred to arbitration,
the process of which should be designed to ensure that a solution is
reached. It seems that there is no need for a provision to be written
into the Bill that will allow decisions to be made by the Government,
rather than by someone charged with arbitration. There is a risk that
the Government will not only be one of the parties in the arbitration,
but the arbiter as well, which seems to be an inequitable position.
Therefore, I look forward to the Minister accepting these sensible and
reasonable
amendments.
Mr.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con): I
agree with what my hon. Friend has said. Does the Minister not also
understand that, in a sense, the Secretary of State’s power is
imposed only when the parties disagree at the outset? The danger is
that the Secretary of State will get involved in what could be a very
difficult political debate between parties that disagree about
arbitration. Given the amount of compulsory purchasing and the other
elements in which either the Secretary of State is potentially a final
arbiter or state bodies own part of the land concerned, it seems the
worst of all worlds for the Secretary of State to take on that power.
However, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, the parties should be
obliged to go to arbitration whether or not they
agree.
Mr.
Harris:
As the hon. Member for Wimbledon knows, paragraph
1 of schedule 2 grants the nominated undertaker general powers to carry
out ancillary works additional to the scheduled works. Paragraph 2
allows the nominated undertaker to provide highway accesses, whether
permanent or temporary, at the points marked on the deposited plans,
except when the highway authority objects on the specific grounds
provided. Such access may be similarly provided with the consent of the
highway authority—such consent not to be unreasonably
withheld—at any other point within the Bill limits. Any disputes
about the provision of highway accesses are to be determined by the
Secretary of State unless the parties agree that the matter should be
referred to
arbitration.
Paragraph
8 allows the nominated undertaker to make use of sewers and
watercourses for removing water in connection with the construction or
maintenance of Crossrail. Any disputes about making use of sewers and
watercourses are to be determined by the Secretary of State unless the
parties agree that the matter should be referred to
arbitration.
The
amendments would remove the Secretary of State’s ability, as the
hon. Gentleman said, to determine disputes about highway accesses or
the discharge of water, meaning that they would in all cases go
straight to arbitration. Giving the Secretary of State the ability to
determine disputes about various matters is well precedented in
projects of national significance such as Crossrail. The provisions are
modelled on identical provisions in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link
Act 1996, and the Bill contains many other provisions whereby the
Secretary of State, sometimes acting jointly with another Secretary of
State—for example, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs—will be able to determine disputes. Arbitration can be a rather
time-consuming and costly experience, particularly when both sides do
not feel that it is necessary, and the Bill’s approach is to
allow for arbitration only when both sides agree. The amendments would
ensure that arbitration occurred even when both parties did not want
it. The provisions in the Bill worked well in legislation for the
channel tunnel rail link, and Ministers are well used to exercising
such functions. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his
amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
I have listened very carefully to the Minister,
to his comments about precedent in other legislation and to the point
that the amendments would refer people to arbitration even if they did
not want it, which in some cases is extremely helpful. I hope that he
has taken on board the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities
of London and Westminster, who made the point that, in relatively minor
cases, the Secretary of State may be drawn into political disputes that
he would not wish to be drawn into. Nevertheless, given the precedent
in other legislation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed
to.
Clause 3
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule
3
Highways
Question
proposed, That this schedule be the Third schedule to the
Bill.
Stephen
Hammond:
There was no need to discuss clause 3 because it
simply introduced schedule 3, but will the Minister confirm that the
schedule deals entirely with the highways that need to be altered for
Crossrail and that, given that they were determined by the Select
Committee, there is no need for a debate in this
Committee?
Mr.
Harris:
The hon. Gentleman interprets the schedule exactly
in the way that I would have
done.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Schedule 3
agreed
to.
Clause
4
Overhead
lines
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill
Stephen
Hammond:
The clause deals with the Electricity Act 1989,
which established the regime under which the consents for overhead
lines are granted, and disapplies that regime within the deviation
limits on other land on which it is intended to build Crossrail. It
establishes schedule 4, which details the new consents regime, and
then makes provision for the expiry of the disapplication and the
application of the consents regime in the 1989 Act.
There are a number of public
safety and other concerns when dealing with electricity. The consents
regime was put in place so that specialists would deal with the
national electricity grid and its distribution. Will the Minister tell
us why he feels, therefore, that it is necessary to disapply the normal
consents regime in that highly specialised area? Why is that necessary
given that many other construction projects are built complying with
the 1989 Act consents regime? Why is Crossrail different? Why are these
powers necessary? I look forward to him reassuring us that the powers
are
necessary.
Mr.
Harris:
I am always happy to try to
offer reassurance to the hon. Gentleman. However, I note that he has
not tabled any amendments to clause
4.
Stephen
Hammond:
I did table an amendment, but it was not
selected.
Mr.
Harris:
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for that
mistake.
As the hon.
Gentleman said, the clause disapplies the provisions in section 37(1)
of the 1989 Act in relation to overhead electric lines installed within
the deviation limits, in exercise of powers conferred by the Bill or
pursuant to any of the protective provisions in schedule 16.
Furthermore, it introduces schedule 4, which makes alternative
provision for consent of such lines, and enables the relevant
Secretaries of State to grant deemed planning permission alongside that
consent, with or without conditions. The construction of Crossrail will
require a number of diversions of overhead electric lines, including
the two specified in the table in paragraph 3 of schedule 2. Clause 4
and schedule 4 will provide a more tailored, detailed consent regime
for the approval of works under the Bill. I had hoped that those
provisions would be uncontroversial; they, too, are precedented in the
1996 Act.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 4
order
ed
to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
4 agreed
to.
Clause 5
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
9.30
am
Schedule
5
Temporary
possession and use of
land
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 28, in
schedule 5, page 98, line 25, leave
out ‘28’ and insert
‘56’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 29, in schedule 5, page 100,
line 26, leave out ‘28’ and insert
‘56’.
Stephen
Hammond:
The amendments are identical. The schedule deals
with the temporary possession and use of land. Whether the land is to
be used for the construction of works, as with the lead amendment, or
for the maintenance of works, as with amendment No. 29, the
nominated undertaker is required to give only 28 days’ notice to
the owners and occupiers of land of which he intends to take
possession. That is not long if one has to make necessary arrangements
and move off one’s
land.
I
seek to be fairer to those who are to be required to move off their
land, and I think that 56 days, or two months, is a more suitable
period. Given the length of advance planning that has gone into this
project and the advance notice that will be given to people, giving 56
days’ notice should not cause the nominated undertaker any
problems. I hope that the Committee will look favourably on the
amendments.
Mr.
Harris:
It is no surprise that we are having a debate
about extending 28 days to 56, but I had expected it to be in a
slightly different
context.
The schedule
allows the nominated undertaker temporarily to take possession and make
use of land in connection with Crossrail works. It requires that 28
days’ notice be given by the nominated undertaker to the owners
and occupiers of the land before possession is taken for constructing
and maintaining the works. The amendments would double that notice
period.
The 28-day
notice period for the temporary possession of land is sufficient and
well precedented in many private railway and hybrid Bills, as well as
in the Department’s model clauses, which consider 14 days
appropriate. Doubling the notice period would impose additional
inflexibility on the nominated undertaker when it came to carrying out
Crossrail construction and maintenance works efficiently.
Cross London Rail Links is
already in touch with many of the relevant owners and occupiers, and,
in many cases, has agreements in place for a longer notice period where
the matter is of particular sensitivity and could reasonably be
accommodated by the nominated undertaker. Agreeing such arrangements
case by case is the appropriate solution when these matters arise. I
therefore cannot support the amendment, and I hope that the hon.
Gentleman will be satisfied by my assurances and withdraw
it.
Stephen
Hammond:
I thank the Minister for his reply and I am
pleased to hear that the Department has doubled the period recommended
in its model arrangements. I am also pleased that he thinks 28 days a
suitable notice period; I am sure that he will think the same on other
matters, otherwise the Government might lose some members, I suspect.
Having listened to his assurances and his concern about the restriction
on flexibility, and taking on board the fact that the Government have
already moved some way on this, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Mr.
Harris:
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in
schedule 5, page 101, line 27, leave
out paragraph 6 and
insert—
‘6 Section 13 of the
Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (c. 56) (refusal to give possession
to acquiring authority) applies for the purposes of this Schedule as
if—
(a) references to the acquiring authority were
references to the nominated
undertaker,
(b) references to
compensation payable to the person refusing to give possession were
references to compensation payable under this Schedule,
and
(c) in subsection (1) for
“this Act” there were substituted “Schedule 5 to
the Crossrail Act
2008”.’.
The
amendment is purely technical and reflects a recent change to the law
on the enforcement of compulsory purchase orders. The change means that
High Court enforcement officers and the high sheriff of each county can
enforce compulsory purchase orders in England and Wales. The amendment
will apply that change to the enforcement of powers in the Bill to take
temporary possession of land.
Stephen
Hammond:
I have listened carefully to the Minister, but I
seek some reassurance. Paragraph 6 of the schedule sets out the
arrangements for enforcing the provision of any land, be it
compulsorily purchased, required or taken temporarily, if the owner
fails to give up or hinders the taking of possession. I can see why the
Government might want to tighten sub-paragraph (3), and we would
welcome that, but the amendment will mean that the paragraph applies
only to land that is compulsorily purchased, as it enacts section 13 of
the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. That does not seem to allow the
flexibility that the Minister wanted in other clauses or to have the
same wider power implied in paragraph 6(1), which states that if the
nominated undertaker is authorised, they
can
“enter on and take
possession of any
land”.
Indeed,
the explanatory notes reinforce that position. They refer to the
arrangements for
the
“enforcement of any
possession required”
of
any land. Is the Minister satisfied that there will be no circumstances
in which the power to enter and take land might not exist following
agreement being given to Government amendment No.
1?
Mr.
Harris:
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that his
concerns are unfounded. The Government do not believe that that will be
the effect of the amendment. To clarify, the 1965 Act does not provide
for compensation for temporary possession. Schedule 5 will give an
entitlement to
compensation
“to the
owners and occupiers of land...for any loss which they may suffer
by reason of the exercise in relation to the land of the power or
powers conferred by this
paragraph”—
that
is, paragraph 4. It follows the precedent set by previous railway Bills
and the Transport and Works Act 1992 model
clauses.
The amendment
is about the office holders who will be able to enforce orders, and not
the effect of those orders. It simply identifies who is responsible for
an order. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman enough
reassurance.
Amendment
agreed
to
.
Question
proposed, That this schedule, as amended, be the Fifth schedule to
the
Bill.
Mr.
Harris:
I wish to make a few comments and clarifications
on the schedule. It allows the nominated undertaker temporarily to take
possession of and make
use of land in connection with carrying out Crossrail works. The table
in paragraph 1 shows the land in question and the purposes for which it
may be used—for example, mitigation works, utility diversions,
means of access, provision of working space, highway access or a work
site.
The schedule
requires 28 days’ notice to be given to the owners and occupiers
of the land before possession is taken, and the possession is
time-limited to one year after completion of the works, unless the
owners agree otherwise. Compensation may be payable for such
possession, with any disputes about such compensation to be determined
under the Land Compensation Act
1961.
Paragraph 2
requires the nominated undertaker, before giving up possession of any
land used under paragraph 1, to put the land in question back into such
condition as may be agreed in a scheme between him, the owners of the
land and the local planning authority, or as determined by the
appropriate Ministers. The paragraph also sets out what such a scheme
may and may not
require.
Paragraph 3
allows the nominated undertaker to use any road situated on land
specified in paragraph 8 of schedule 6 for the passage of persons or
vehicles. Compensation may be payable for any loss suffered as a result
of such use, with any disputes about such compensation to be determined
under the 1961
Act.
Paragraph 4
allows the nominated undertaker, during the maintenance period of any
work, which is defined as being up to five years from the date on which
the work is brought into general use, to enter upon and take possession
of land within the Bill limits and within 20 m of any scheduled work,
if such possession is necessary for maintaining the work. The power
granted by the paragraph does not apply to any house or garden, or land
not subject to compulsory purchase under the Bill, and the nominated
undertaker must give at least 28 days’ notice to the owners and
occupiers of the land before possession is
taken.
The nominated
undertaker may remain in possession of such land only
as long as is reasonably necessary, and must, before giving up
possession, restore the land in question to the reasonable satisfaction
of the owners of the land. Compensation may be payable for any loss
suffered as a result of such use, with any disputes about such
compensation to be determined under the 1961
Act.
Paragraph 5
allows for private rights of way to be temporarily suspended and
provides that compensation may be payable to anyone who suffers loss as
a result of any such extinguishment, with any disputes about such
compensation to be determined under the 1961
Act.
Paragraph 6 sets
out the arrangements for the enforcement of any possession required
under the paragraph should the owner or occupier of the land in
question refuse to give up possession of it or hinder the taking of
possession. It makes similar provision to that applying to the taking
of possession following notice of entry on a compulsory
purchase.
Stephen
Hammond:
We are grateful for the Minister’s
extensive explanation of the schedule. I noted halfway through that
explanation the interesting and welcome comment that compensation will
be paid, and will be determined by an independent body, not the
Secretary
of State. In other cases, the Secretary of State wanted to take those
powers upon
herself.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Schedule
5
,
as amended, agreed
to.
| 
