Schedule
13
Disapplication
and modification of miscellaneous
controls
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 57, in schedule 13,
page 206, line 25, leave out sub-paragraph
(3).
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 58, in schedule 13, page 206, line 29, leave out
‘or
(3)’.
Stephen
Hammond:
Schedule 13 is an important part of the Bill, in
that it adjusts any legislation that might otherwise hinder the
construction and operation of Crossrail. It includes a number of
different paragraphs, a couple of which relate to London lorries and
the effects of the London lorry ban order—the Greater London
(Restriction of Goods Vehicles) Traffic Order 1985—on the
Crossrail
project.
Paragraph 10
of the schedule makes provision for the approval of a lorry licence if
certain conditions are met. In principle, I can see that that is
absolutely necessary, but the paragraph goes on to state
that
“no condition may be
imposed which is likely to obstruct the carrying out of authorised
works”.
My concern about
that wording is that there may be a number of circumstances in which
localised conditions mean that the use of lorries will have to be
slightly curtailed or at least regulated. I imagine that if a permit
were granted, extra conditions would be imposed only if absolutely
necessary, and if that were absolutely necessary, it would be unwise
for the Bill to state that such a condition would
automatically not be
enforceable.
The
underlying motivation for the amendment is a desire to see that the
construction of Crossrail is carried out responsibly. I hope that the
Minister will elucidate exactly how schedule 13 and, in particular,
paragraph 10 in relation to approval of a lorry licence will operate,
and reassure me that my amendment is not
required.
Mr.
Harris:
Again, the amendment is not necessary, but I can
understand why the hon. Gentleman tabled it and the concerns that he
has expressed. Paragraph 10 of schedule 13 deals with applications for
the issue of a permit under the London lorry ban order in
connection with the carrying out of Crossrail works authorised by the
Bill, whether in an emergency, when special procedures set out in
paragraph 11 apply, or in other circumstances. The London lorry ban
order enables restrictions to be put in place on the use of heavy goods
vehicles in the scheme area to help to minimise noise pollution in
residential areas during unsocial
hours.
Sub-paragraph
(3) of paragraph 10 requires that if an application is
granted
“no condition may
be imposed which is likely to obstruct the carrying out of authorised
works...in a timely and efficient manner, or...in accordance
with approved
arrangements.”
Sub-paragraph
(4) allows an applicant aggrieved by a decision on the issue under
sub-paragraph (2) or conditioning under sub-paragraph (3) of a permit
to appeal to the Secretary of State.
The amendments proposed by the
hon. Member for Wimbledon would allow the authority responsible for
issuing permits to condition the permit in a way that could obstruct
the timely and efficient carrying out of Crossrail works or be
inconsistent with approvals previously given by the
relevant local planning authorities to lorry
routes.
The amendment
is not desirable. It would allow the issuing authority to overrule the
careful consideration that local planning authorities will already have
given to the matter of lorry routing under the schedule 7 consents
process. Schedule 7 expressly provides that the local planning
authority may modify the nominated undertaker’s proposed
arrangements for lorry routing on grounds including the preservation of
the local environment, where that is reasonably possible. In other
words, the amendment would undermine the good work that local
authorities had already done on lorry routing.
In addition,
the amendment would expose the project to additional cost and risk of
delay. It is unreasonable for the project to face that risk, given the
protections available to local residents through the schedule 7
process. There is the opportunity to petition in the Bill itself, and
there have been a number of undertakings to petitioners on the matter
of lorry routing. With those assurances about the other protections
available to local residents as regards lorry routing, I invite the
hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
I listened carefully to the Minister and I am
happy to accept his invitation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 59, in
schedule 13, page 206, line 33, leave
out from beginning to end of line 35 and
insert—
‘( ) Where an appeal
under sub-paragraph (4) is dismissed by the Secretary of State, it
should be referred to
arbitration’.
The
amendment is self-explanatory. It would transfer the task of dispute
resolution from the Secretary of State to a third-party arbiter. Clause
62 sets out a robust arbitration process, which would be suitable for
resolving the kind of dispute that may arise as a result of the
necessary disruption caused by the construction and operation of
Crossrail. The resolution procedure provides, for example, that if two
parties cannot agree on an arbiter, the president of
the Institute of Mechanical Engineers or someone appointed by the ORR
will perform the role of arbiter. If such an arbitration process is
good enough to deal with disputes arising from provisions elsewhere in
the Bill, why is it not good enough to deal with those arising from the
provisions in this schedule?
The key benefit of arbitration
is that the final decision is made by a person who is accepted by both
parties to the dispute, which gives the arbiter the necessary authority
and independence. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State would
come to a reasoned and fair decision, but I fear, as I have said
previously, that he or she may not have the same perceived independence
as a third-party arbiter. Clause 62 provides for an independent
arbiter, and such a person would be much better suited than the
Secretary of
State to making the relevant decisions. I therefore look forward to the
Minister accepting my invitation to agree to the
amendment.
Mr.
Harris:
Paragraph 10 of schedule 13 to the Bill deals with
applications for the issue of permits under the London lorry ban order
in connection with the carrying out of Crossrail works. Sub-paragraph
(4) provides that an applicant who is aggrieved by the decision of the
local authority responsible for issuing the permit may appeal to the
Secretary of State within 28 days of notification of the decision.
Sub-paragraph (5) provides that the Secretary of State may allow or
dismiss the appeal or vary the decision of the authority
concerned.
The hon.
Gentleman’s amendment would replace the certainty provided by
the Secretary of State’s decision to dismiss an appeal by the
applicant, who is likely to be a contractor or sub-contractor to the
nominated undertaker, with an uncertain and unclear
right or obligation—the drafting does not make clear
which—to seek arbitration following the Secretary of
State’s decision. Given that applications for permits cannot
always be planned far in advance, as the inclusion of an emergency
procedure in paragraph 11 anticipates, the option of further
protracting the decision-making process through the further step of
mandatory referral to arbitration would be of no benefit to the
applicant or the progression of the Crossrail project more generally. I
hope that the reference to the emergency situation will explain why the
provisions for arbitration or the lack of arbitration in the schedule
differ from those in the schedules to which the hon. Gentleman
referred.
Stephen
Hammond:
I have listened to the Minister and clearly the
emergency issue is one of relevance and importance. However, I am
surprised that he thinks that the drafting is unclear. I thought that
the words “should be referred to” would have provided for
a clear obligation. It might be that he thinks that the obligation
would not help the process, but it might help those involved in the
arbitration. I might revisit the amendment on Report, therefore, but at
this stage I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Schedule
13 agreed
to.
Clause 49
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
14
Burial
grounds: removal of human remains and
monuments
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 60, in
schedule 14, page 210, line 24, at
end insert—
‘( ) If the
remains were interred less than 25 years ago, the
nominated undertaker shall make every reasonable effort to identify the
relatives or personal representative of the deceased, and consult those
people as to how the nominated undertaker proposes to carry out its
functions under this Schedule with respect to the disposal of the
remains or
monument.’. We
now turn to the question of the construction of Crossrail affecting the
burial grounds of human remains and monuments to the deceased. I am
aware that the Select Committee considered a number of petitions about
that and has carried out some excellent work. However, clearly the
removal of burial grounds and monuments in order to make way for the
construction of Crossrail is an important and sensitive
issue, which the Bill tackles comprehensively.
Paragraph 1(1) and (2) of schedule 14 requires the nominated undertaker
to publish details of removals, and sub-paragraph (3) relaxes those
rules when dealing with the remains of someone who died more than a
century ago. That appears to be
appropriate.
My
amendment, however, proposes an additional sub-paragraph that would
change the rules when dealing with the remains of those who died more
recently and would represent a more sensitive way of dealing with this
very distressing matter. Twenty five years is a relatively short period
for burials. I accept that no obligation could be placed on a nominated
undertaker to take the approach proposed in the amendment when dealing
with all interred remains. However, very little effort would be
required in order for the nominated undertaker to find relatives of
those interred more recently. They could refer easily to undertakers
that performed the particular ceremony, church records or the electoral
role. Rather than just placing a notice in a newspaper, a slightly more
demanding obligation should be placed on the nominated undertaker in
order to relieve some of the distress caused to the families of those
interred less than 25 years ago whose remains will be removed to make
way for the albeit necessary construction of
Crossrail.
Mr.
Binley:
I support the amendment. In fact I would go even
further and, therefore, seek help from the Minister. Many people have
moved out of London, many of whom came to Northamptonshire, on an
overspill basis, 40 years ago. Many of their
grandparents are the people we are talking about, but they might have
died 40 or 50 years ago. Although I recognise that there is a limit to
what he can do for those people, will he rethink this scenario very
seriously? It will impact immensely on sizeable numbers of
Northamptonshire residents, and I am sure that the same goes for other
counties. Will he be kind and give us and them some comfort in that
respect?
It
being One o’clock
the Chairman
adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing
Order.
Adjourned
accordingly till this day at Four
o’clock.
| 
