Clause
6
Acquisition
of land within limits shown on deposited
plans
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 6, in
clause 6, page 3, line 19, leave
out ‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘nominated
undertaker’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 7, in
clause 7, page 4, line 14, leave out
‘Secretary of State’ and insert ‘nominated
undertaker’.
Stephen
Hammond:
The Bill deals with the powers and authorisations
necessary to build Crossrail. Those powers are vested in either the
Secretary of State or the nominated undertaker. The Secretary of State
clearly has the power to nominate the nominated undertaker, so the
power in the clause to acquire land is vested with the Secretary of
State. What will happen if a nominated undertaker has already been
nominated? Will that nominated undertaker also require the power to
acquire land
compulsorily?
By
inserting “nominated undertaker”, the amendment would
cover circumstances in which the nominated undertaker was not the
Secretary of State, and if it was the Secretary of State, those
circumstances would also be covered, because the Secretary of State and
the nominated undertaker could be one and the same at any
time.
This is a simple
amendment, but on reflection perhaps I should have drafted it so that
the power would be vested not in the Secretary of State or the
nominated undertaker, but in the Secretary of State and/or the
nominated undertaker. None the less, I believe that it would fill a
potential gap in the Bill, but if I am wrong I look forward to the
Minister enlightening the Committee as to why the Secretary of State
alone is sufficient, and not also the nominated
undertaker.
Mr.
Harris:
I am tempted, but not quite enough. The amendments
are workable, but not desirable. Many of the powers are conferred on
the nominated undertaker who will undertake particular works. However,
in the Bill, as in the 1996 Act before it, we have deliberately chosen
to vest the compulsory purchase powers in a public authority because of
the special sensitivity of such powers, and to give added public
confidence in the exercising of those powers. I shall explain how they
will work.
The
nominated undertaker will design his works, and as part of that will
establish what land is required to undertake those works. He is
unlikely to need all the land within limits specified in the Bill
plans, so this is a selective process in determining what is required.
Under the amendment to clause 6, he would proceed directly to serving
notices to treat, which initiate the
acquisition process. However, under clause 6, there is
a further stage. The nominated undertaker’s land requirements
will be submitted to the Secretary of State, or the Greater London
authority and/or Transport for London if devolved to them. The public
authority must then satisfy itself that the issue of notices to treat
is appropriate. That is intended to provide additional public
confidence in the process for acquiring land
compulsorily. The same
public accountability issue arises in the amendment to clause 7.
Generally, if the nominated undertaker finds that he needs land outside
the Bill limits—for example, for mitigation works—he will
seek to acquire that land by agreement. Only if that fails will the
nominated undertaker need to seek compulsory acquisition. As in clause
6, clause 7 will require the nominated undertaker to submit his
proposals to the Secretary of State, the GLA and/or TfL, which will
then decide whether seeking a compulsory purchase order is
appropriate.
For
projects that do not involve a public authority, compulsory powers will
be exercised directly by the body responsible for the works. There is
nothing wrong with that, but for a hybrid Bill, since the Secretary of
State is the promoter, there tends to be an expectation among those
affected of her continuing accountability for the exercise of the
compulsory purchase powers. For those reasons, I want to maintain the
provisions of clauses 6(1) and 7(1). They are precedented and will help
to maintain public confidence and accountability. I therefore urge the
hon. Member for Wimbledon to withdraw the
amendment.
9.45
am
Stephen
Hammond:
I have been listening carefully to the Minister,
and I am pleased that he was tempted by our amendment—it is
indeed tempting. His point about accountability is powerful. I was
tempted to divide the Committee, but, having listened to him, I shall
resist that temptation, although I give him notice that I might wish to
test the matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
6 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
6
Acquisition
of land shown within limits on deposited
plans
Question
proposed, That this schedule be the Sixth schedule to the
Bill.
Sir
Peter Soulsby (Leicester, South) (Lab): I want to take the
opportunity, as one of the survivors of incarceration in the Select
Committee, to draw attention to the significant number of properties
that are included in the schedule. I remind Members who did not have to
suffer that incarceration that the Select Committee gave landowners and
others affected, many of them by schedule 6, the opportunity to
petition against the Bill and have their interests
considered.
We
received a large number of petitions and took careful consideration of
the impact on the petitioners.
In particular, we listened to the cases that they made to us on how
compensation will be applied and how compulsory purchase will affect
their interests. As a result of hearing those petitions, we were able
to seek from the Government and the promoters of the Bill amendments to
their proposals, which mitigated to some extent the situation of
petitioners and
landowners. It is also
worth my reminding the Committee that those whose land and interests
are included in the schedule will have a further opportunity to
petition, should they wish to do so, when the Bill goes through the
Lords. We can be reassured that the interests of those affected were
taken into account at the early stages and that those people will have
a further opportunity to have them considered, if they
wish.
Mr.
Field:
I very much endorse what the hon. Gentleman has
just said. I did not have the privilege or otherwise of being
incarcerated in the Select Committee, not least because my constituency
will be fundamentally affected by the Bill, particularly in the City of
London, Mayfair and Bayswater. I have recently had correspondence with
Paddington Residents Active Concern on Transport. There is a sense
among local residents that they had their day in the sun. They are
grateful for the opportunity to petition, and they recognise that that
is only part of the process and that they will have further
opportunities to make their views clear to the House of Lords. They
feel that they were dealt with courteously by the Select Committee and
were able to put their points
strongly.
There are a
number of residual problems. Without getting down to the narrow
specifics, they are broadly to do with noise and vibration from trains
underneath certain residential areas. We have already debated the 15-m
limit, rather than one of 20 or 25 m or a floating slab track
underneath, which could be extremely expensive, and the Minister will
have had the matter well rehearsed with him. There are also ongoing
issues of a highly localised nature, and common sense needs to prevail
in relation to changes in
traffic.
Obviously,
those changes will be a particularly big issue in the centre of London
while works are ongoing. Moves to make particular roads one way or to
make existing one-way roads two way could have an immense knock-on
effect for a locality, particularly around Paddington. Again, I am
reassured that the Committee was in listening mode during consideration
of the hybrid Bill, and I hope that that continues going
forward.
I think that
there is an understanding from people in central
London; they recognise that it is important to have Crossrail. Equally,
a lot of residents understandably feel great worry about the noise and
disruption, and obviously there are concerns about the likely costs to
the London council tax payer. However, the biggest issue, as I see it,
is blight.
At this
stage, we need to get on with the project. The worst possible scenario
would be either failure of the financing or a very long-winded
parliamentary process, such that people who live in the vicinity of the
project find that their whole life is
blighted.
I know that
we will come on to the issue of blight under clause 7 and further
schedules that try to ensure that, where there is blight, it is kept to
an absolute
minimum. This process of scrutiny has been useful, but we need to get on
with the work to ensure that the effect on the residential
amenity—which is clearly going to be suffered by many tens of
thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people—is kept to an
absolute
minimum.
Mr.
Harris:
I had not intended to do anything other than
formally move the schedule, but given the comments made by the hon.
Member for Cities of London and Westminster and by my hon. Friend the
Member for Leicester, South, I shall make a few closing
remarks.
First, this
is not the first time, and it will not be the last, that I have paid
tribute to the work that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members did on
the Select Committee. This Committee should indeed be very grateful to
them. That leads me to the comments made by the hon. Member for Cities
of London and Westminster. A great many of the concerns felt by private
individuals along the Crossrail route were fully expressed in the
Select Committee, which is why, of course, it took 21 months of hard
work to hear all those
concerns.
I appreciate
the comments that the hon. Gentleman has made, and I know that he has
been an active Member of the House in representing his
constituents’ concerns, specifically with regard to the effect
of Crossrail on his constituency. In fact, I believe that he and I have
corresponded on one or two of those issues. He can be reassured that
the process that we are going through in this Committee, obviously with
specific reference to schedule 6, will allow everyone who has concerns
about Crossrail to express them—to have, as he put it, their day
in the sun. I have no doubt that, with a fair wind in Committee, on the
Floor of the House and in another place, the delays that he is worried
about will not occur.
Question put and agreed
to.
Schedule 6
agreed
to.
Clause
7
Acquisition
of land not subject to the power under section
6(1)
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 8, in
clause 7, page 4, line 17, at
end insert
‘providing it is in within 50
metres of the outer limits of deviation for the scheduled
works’.
The
Secretary of State has the power compulsorily to purchase land for
Crossrail and its construction on the designated route and on land
outside the designated route, but within the limits of deviation.
However, the clause goes well beyond that. It gives the Secretary of
State powers compulsorily to purchase land
“outside the limits of deviation
for the scheduled works and the limits of land to be acquired or used
which is required for or in connection with the works
authorised”.
That seems
to be an extraordinary
power.
There is a
dedicated route and, understandably, there may need to be deviations
from that route for the work to progress, and as the work progresses
there will be a need for flexibility, hence the need for the power to
acquire land within the limits of deviation. There may be a need to
acquire land alongside the route, so as to facilitate the building of
the railway or to support the railway when it is operational. All that
is understood. To cover both those eventualities, a deviation from the
route has been
proposed. That
deviation is certainly necessary and it has been specified. However,
the clause goes well beyond that, as it allows the compulsory purchase
of land
“outside the
limits of deviation for the scheduled
works”,
which
means that the Secretary of State may compulsorily acquire any land
that she deems necessary for building Crossrail, wherever it may
be.
There are
questions that the Minister must answer to the Committee’s
satisfaction. For example, why will land necessary only for
construction, which is surely the land approximate to the route, fall
outside the limits of deviation? Surely, along the designated route,
the limits of deviation have been set so as to anticipate all necessary
diversions from it. The limits of deviation as specified should be, and
are, adequate. The worrying aspect of the clause is that it brings to
mind the Martini principle: the Secretary of State can acquire land
anywhere and at any time that she deems necessary for the construction
of Crossrail. What is the purpose of
that?
The Secretary of
State is potentially being granted extraordinary powers, and there is a
potential cost to the public purse that is wholly disproportionate to
that need. My amendment—I hope the Minister will be even more
tempted by this one—would allow the extra flexibility that he
craves, but also define it. The Secretary of State would have power to
acquire land outside the deviation, but limited to 50 m, which is an
adequate restriction that would cover all eventualities for
construction or land running alongside the route. The amendment would
also allow for any circumstances along the confines of the route that
anyone could envisage in respect of land acquisition being
necessary.
This
equally tempting amendment would grant the Secretary of State the
exceptional powers that the Minister desires while placing a limit on
the flexibility that he
requires.
Mr.
Binley:
May I speak in support of the amendment moved so
ably by my hon. Friend? The process that we went through in the
interminable hybrid Bill Committee aimed at ensuring that
people’s rights were fully protected and that petitioners who
might have been affected by the route as then outlined had every right
to bring their concerns to the Committee in a proper way. Many of those
people were not the wealthiest in the land—they did not have a
great deal of money to get lawyers to fight their case—but they
were able to come before our Committee, make their plea and state their
case. That was a fine example of parliamentary
democracy.
My concern
is that the clause opens the whole thing up again.
Although I understand the point about the House of Lords, those people
are denied the opportunity to appear before the hybrid Bill Committee,
which they had with regard to the defined route. I found that Committee
process very impressive. If I may pay tribute to a Committee that I was
a member of, it considered these matters seriously and, most
importantly, compassionately. That is what this process is all
about.
There are serious concerns about
green land and open areas in London. That became apparent throughout
the process. We were careful not to impact too greatly on the available
green land because of its scarcity, which made sense to me, and the
hybrid Bill Committee clearly supported that view. My concern is that
the clause opens up the opportunity yet again—after the end of
proceedings in the hybrid Bill Committee—for the
project’s undertakers to suggest to the Secretary of State that
other routes need to be considered or included, meaning that we will
not be able to consider such matters in the depth that we did in the
hybrid Bill
Committee.
I express
the same concerns as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, and I
hope that the Minister, who is a fair man, will recognise that common
rights—the rights of the common people—are important, and
that some limiting is important to protect those
rights.
10
am
Mr.
Lee Scott (Ilford, North) (Con): Although Crossrail will
not run through my constituency, it will run through neighbouring
constituencies, and concerns have been raised with me that if the
current project is allowed, there will be the blight to which my hon.
Friend the Member for Wimbledon referred, and uncertainty in a much
wider area than is absolutely necessary for the deviation of Crossrail.
I support my hon. Friend and ask the Minister to reconsider and accept
our amendment.
Mr.
Field:
I fear that the reference to Martini powers dates
my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon and me. I am sure that our
youthful Whip, our hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth,
will not remember such things from the 1970s, although they were
perhaps a precursor to today’s binge-drinking problem.
I support all
that my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon, for Northampton, South
and for Ilford, North have said. As I said earlier, the potential for
blight within the whole project is sufficient to make unacceptable a
compulsory purchase power as untrammelled as the Minister would like.
Even our amendment limiting the land to 50 m beyond the outer limits of
deviation would have a major effect in London, as my hon. Friend the
Member for Northampton, South rightly pointed out. One of the
difficulties of maintaining green spaces in London—some of which
may be run by local authorities, some of which may be common
land—is to prevent the residential population rising up in arms
if such land is used even for the purposes of the 50 m limit, let alone
for the untrammelled limit that the Minister would have us put in
place.
I worry that
in central London even 50 m is an incredibly large distance. It
potentially brings tens of thousands more people within the scope of
Crossrail’s inevitable blight. An untrammelled power would
certainly send the wrong signals, not least given the sense from the
business and residential communities that this is an important
infrastructure project. Even those people who it will directly affect
recognise its
general national importance, but that good will could be undermined by
the Minister’s untrammelled power of potential compulsory
purchase. I accept that it is unlikely to be exercised in a great many
cases, but the amendment is a sensible suggestion which would pare back
the worst aspects of the
power.
Susan
Kramer:
Blight concerns me and my colleagues
greatly, and we hope to address it later in the Bill’s
consideration. The Minister may feel that he cannot quite commit to a
specific limitation of the power now, but by the time the Bill makes
its way through the other place, there should be far greater clarity
about the potential deviation required, the final route and the outer
issues. However, it is crucial that the scope of the affected project
area is identified and clarified as early as possible. Although blight
is bad, perceived blight is almost worse and the present system offers
no potential for compensation.
Mr.
Harris:
The concerns that hon. Members have expressed are
understandable. I understand why on the face of it the provisions look
like powers for the Secretary of State to implement a Soviet land grab.
At the risk of disappointing some of my hon. Friends, that is not the
intention of the clause; neither is it a proposal to allow deviation of
Crossrail to Stoke-on-Trent or areas far beyond what has been laid down
in the Bill.
As the
hon. Member for Wimbledon is aware, clause
7 provides additional powers to acquire land outside the Bill limits.
However, unlike the principal land acquisition powers in clause 6,
which deals with land acquisition within the Bill limits, the power to
acquire land under clause 7 can be exercised only through a compulsory
purchase order under existing compulsory purchase legislation.
Accordingly, the Secretary of State would be required to prepare and
publicise a draft compulsory purchase order, so that those affected
could object, which might necessitate a hearing or public local
inquiry. Furthermore, the acquisition of any land under a compulsory
purchase order would attract compensation under the national
compensation code. I hope that that goes some way to meeting the
concerns of the hon. Member for Northampton,
South.
The amendments
tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon would, in effect, restrict the
Secretary of State’s powers to acquire compulsorily land outside
the Bill limits, in connection with Crossrail, to within 50 m of the
outer limits of deviation for the scheduled works. The extent to which
land outside the Bill limits can be acquired compulsorily is well
precedented. For example, section 5 of the 1996 Act made similar
provision, and of course the powers that the clause will give to the
Secretary of State have, in the past, been given to Secretaries of
State in previous Governments.
As I have said previously, the
design of Crossrail is currently at an outline stage—detailed
design work will come later—so flexibility is essential.
However, even at this very early stage in the design and construction,
it is possible that, without prejudice to the generality, land further
than 50 m from the outer limits of deviation for the scheduled works
will be required.
Clause 7 gives three specific
instances where the power might be used to acquire land in order to
help those affected by the project: to mitigate the effect of the
Crossrail works on the environment using, for
example, the erection of sound barriers; and for the relocation of
utility apparatus that merits diversion or replacement as a result of
the Crossrail works, and crucially in order to provide land in exchange
for common land, certain allotment land or open space acquired for the
Crossrail works. I
emphasise again that any such proposal would demonstrably have to be
for, or in connection with, Crossrail. It could not be used to acquire
land for other purposes. Full protection is provided under the normal
compulsory purchase scheme. I assure hon. Members that we do not intend
to make general use of the clause; it is a failsafe mechanism, and will
be used only with restraint. In that context, I hope that the hon.
Gentleman feels that he can withdraw his amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
I have listened very carefully to the Minister,
and I note his comments about precedent, limits and the need for
flexibility, as well as the fact that a proposal to go outside the
limits could still be subject to compulsory purchase powers and a
public inquiry. None the less, the power proposed is extraordinarily
wide. I referred to the Martini principle—any time, any place,
anywhere. The trouble with the Crossrail Martini is that it will shake
and stir people if used outside the limits. Despite what the Minister
said, I am not tempted to withdraw the amendment. I would like to press
it and test the will of the
Committee.
Question
put, That the amendment be made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
8.
Division
No.
1
]
Question
accordingly negatived.
Question proposed, That
the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stephen
Hammond:
So as not to incur your displeasure, Lady
Winterton, I do not wish to rehearse what we have just discussed in the
previous amendment. However, subsections (2) and (3) allow some further
widening of the power to purchase land outside the conditions set by
clause 6(1), so I would like the Minister to clarify under what
circumstances he envisages the Secretary of State or the nominated
undertaker using those provisions. Will he give the Committee
reassurance about the power to acquire easements or other rights, as
enacted by the clause? Do the Secretary of State or nominated
undertaker require those powers in order to access sites, which, in
reality, will be a small strip of land, and that, therefore, the
acquisition of an easement or a right will be both easier and less
costly to arrange? Does the Minister envisage many such easements to be
required and does he expect the length of the easements that are
acquired
to be temporary or permanent? I look forward to his replies to those
points, as that will aid the Committee’s understanding of the
clause.
Mr.
Harris:
Although I am not able to give an extensive
explanation in response to the hon. Gentleman’s questions, I
reassure him that the powers to which he refers are, as I said in our
earlier debate, intended entirely as a failsafe mechanism. The
Government and its agents in Crossrail would not intend to make general
use of that power. I hope that he will be satisfied with that answer.
If there are any other details with which I can provide him and other
members of the Committee with regard specifically to the clause, I will
be more than happy to write to
them.
Stephen
Hammond:
I thank the Minister for his response. It would
be extremely helpful if he were able to look at the points that I
raised about easements, put his response in a letter and make it
available to the Committee at a later
date.
Question put
and agreed to.
Clause
7
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
| 
