 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 CommitteeTuesday 27 November 2007(Afternoon)[Ann Winterton in the Chair]Crossrail BillSchedule 14Burial
grounds: removal of human remains and
monuments
Amendment
proposed [this day]: 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.’.—[Stephen
Hammond.]
4
pm
Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr.
Tom Harris):
Schedule 14 deals with moving human remains
and monuments from burial grounds and re-interring or cremating the
remains necessary to construct Crossrail. Before that happens, under
the Bill the nominated undertaker, as it were, must publish the
proposal twice in a local newspaper and erect a site notice unless the
remains were interred more than 100 years ago and the Secretary of
State considers that no relative or personal representative is likely
to object. That will give relatives and personal representatives the
opportunity to re-inter or cremate the remains themselves.
The
provisions have a precedent in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996,
and have not proved controversial. Under the amendment, if the
interment took place less than 25 years ago the
nominated undertaker would have to seek out relatives or personal
representatives, which would place substantial additional burdens on
the nominated undertaker. In addition, the requirement in the amendment
is open-ended, so that if no personal representative were found, every
relative would have to be sought, which I am sure was not what the hon.
Member for Wimbledon intended. Lawyers look at the exact wording of
such proposals with great care, and it would be difficult to establish
whether sufficient steps had been taken in any particular case and thus
at what point the nominated undertaker could proceed with his
work.
The
amendment is also unlikely to have any substantive effect. As reported
in the Crossrail environmental statement, Cross London Rail Links has
carried out an archaeological assessment of the land affected by the
project, expected scheme impacts and appropriate mitigation measures.
The assessment indicated that the project is not expected to affect any
interments made within the past 25 years. For those reasons, I do not
support the amendment, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw
it.
I am not sure that I agree with
the Minister that the amendment would place a substantial burden on the
nominated undertaker. I was interested to learn that the
Minister’s favourite profession advised him that we would have
to try to identify every relative. Clearly, that is not my
intention—perhaps the amendment should have said “a
relative” rather than “the
relatives”.
Stephen
Hammond:
There is a lot of gallows humour this afternoon.
I did not intend that the amendment should impose considerable burdens
on people, but as drafted it would do so. I therefore beg to ask leave
to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Schedule
14 agreed
to.
Clause 50
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 51Disposal
of Crown
land
‘after
consultation with the Chief Executive of the Royal Parks Association
and any other relevant interested
parties’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to
discuss the following amendments: No. 63, in clause
51, page 31, line 41, leave out ‘appears to the Secretary of
State’ and insert
‘the Secretary of State has
determined’.
No.
62, in clause 51, page 32, line 2, leave out ‘appears
to’, and insert ‘has been proven
by’.
Stephen
Hammond:
There was some confusion about
the amendments. There was initially some
transposition of their wording, but that problem has been corrected on
the amendment paper. The Minister was quick to spot the transposition,
and I congratulate him on doing so. I have also made an error in
amendment No. 61, which I am sure will cause him to make some other
point. The amendment should state “Royal Parks Agency”,
not “Royal Parks
Association”.
Clause
51 looks at the disposal of land managed by
the Royal Parks Agency or the Crown Estate
Commissioners on behalf of the Crown. Under the clause, the Secretary
of State may grant a lease, easement or other right over such land. The
purpose of my amendment is to avoid any perceived conflict of interest
resulting from the fact that, as the explanatory notes point out, the
Secretary of State is also
“the legal personality of the
Royal Parks Agency”.
It
would require the Secretary of State to consult with the operational
head of the Royal Parks Agency before exercising his powers in respect
of the Crown land, and it would introduce a consultation process with
other interested parties. It would also ensure that the basis of
any decision to dispose of Crown land is as robust
as possible, and is informed by consultation with the most appropriate
parties.
Amendments
Nos. 63 and 62 are designed to achieve the same effect. They would make
a minor change to the wording of the clause, and would require the
Secretary of State to demonstrate that the land in question was needed
for Crossrail. A consistent theme of mine during our sittings has been
to ensure that we provide accountability and responsibility while
giving the Secretary of State the flexibility and the exceptional
powers that he wants. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on
the
amendments.
Mr.
Harris:
Clause 51 deals with technical constraints arising
under the Crown Lands Act 1851 and the Crown Estate Act 1961. Because
land forming part of the royal parks or the Crown estate
belongs to the Crown, it does not need to be compulsorily
acquired, but it may none the less need to be used if we are to
successfully build and operate Crossrail. Clause 51 applies only to
land within the limits of deviation for the scheduled works, and thus
within the limits of land to be acquired or used. Its provisions have
effect only where the body responsible for managing the land—the
Secretary of State in the case of royal parks and the Crown Estate
Commissioners in the case of Crown estate land—considers that it
is required for Crossrail. It might be helpful if I gave an example to
explain why we need clause
51.
To comply with
safety requirements we intend to build a shaft in Hyde park. The likely
significant impacts of the shaft were assessed in the environmental
statement that was deposited with the Bill and those affected had the
opportunity to petition against our proposals. Naturally, we discussed
our plans with the Royal Parks Agency. In addition, some land required
to provide the subsoil land for the Crossrail tunnels is
owned by the Crown Estate Commissioners. Amendment
No. 61 would require the Secretary of State to consult the chief
executive of the royal parks association and any other relevant
interested parties before granting a lease, easement or other right
over a royal park. However, as I have explained, our proposals for Hyde
park have already been the subject of extensive consultation during
proceedings on the
Bill.
On the question
of the royal parks association, as the hon. Gentleman has already
pointed out he meant the Royal Parks Agency, which is an executive
agency of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The status of
the agency may change from time to time, so it would be inappropriate
to write the Department’s internal management structures into
the Bill. That has some relevance, given our earlier discussion about
whether to name Network Rail in the Bill.
Furthermore, a requirement to consult
“any other relevant interested
parties”
would give rise
to uncertainty as to who they were. After listening to the hon.
Gentleman I am not clear what other interested parties he has in
mind.
Amendment No.
62 would require the Secretary of State to prove that land within a
royal park is needed for, or in connection with, the construction of
Crossrail before he or she could grant any lease, easement or other
right in relation to that land. The Secretary of State granting a
lease, easement or other right will, at
the relevant time, have to make a judgment as to whether it appears to
them that the land is required. To include a requirement to prove that
it is required does not make an awful lot of sense, because it suggests
that a third party exists to whom it should be proved. No such party
exists and no such party is proposed in the
amendment.
Amendment
No. 63 would limit the effect of clause 51(3) to cases in which the
Secretary of State has determined that land within the Crown estate is
needed for, or in connection with, the construction
of Crossrail. Under the Bill, it would be for the Crown Estate
Commissioners to be satisfied that part of the Crown estate was needed
for, or in connection with, Crossrail. For the purposes of the
provision, we think that it is right that that approach should be
maintained and that it is the Crown Estate Commissioners who should
take a view. I hope that that has clarified things for the hon.
Gentleman and that he will consider withdrawing his
amendment.
Mr.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con): As
the constituency Member for Hyde park, among other royal parks and
landmarks of this great city, I should like to confirm what the
Minister said. There was extensive consultation on the building of the
new site at the edge of Hyde park, close to the border
with Bayswater road. A number of concerns were raised
by my constituents, many of whom voiced ongoing concern about the
increasing commercialisation of Hyde park. The issue was used as yet
another cause cĂ(c)lèbre, but it is important none the
less.
I support the
amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon. It does
not strike me that “other relevant...parties” in the
context of this issue are an extensive group of
bodies. There is a well regarded list of amenity societies and
residents associations in central London—I am sure the same
applies to any other part of the UK covered by the measure—and
the provision would apply to Friends of Hyde Park and Kensington
Gardens, and perhaps to the Marylebone Association and the South East
Bayswater Residents Association. It would therefore apply to a very
small and defined group. Westminster city council gives status to
certain residents groups for the very purpose of their being consulted
before planning changes are made, and they have locus standi in such
matters. I do not expect that to be a particular
problem.
Mr.
Harris:
I urge the hon. Gentleman to use his legal
background. believe he trained as a solicitor—I am sorry about
that—so does he accept that the catch-all
phrase,
“any other
relevant interested
parties”,
suggests a
level of ambiguity that is not helpful? He is right that there is a
very specific list of organisations that I am sure would be
appropriate, but the proposal does not necessarily point the way to
those
people.
Mr.
Field:
I am happy to assist the Minister by suggesting
that there must be something in the channel tunnel rail legislation
along those lines. The world did not become a much worse place when I
ceased to be a lawyer. Some of my constituents might argue that the
same will be said if I cease to be a parliamentarian before too long,
but I sincerely have no such intention in
mind.
I accept what
the Minister said. We need clarity, and I am not suggesting that the
proposal is 100 per cent. ideal. However, it does make an important
point about Crown estate land. The royal parks are very close to the
hearts of countless millions of people—many of them are
constituents of mine, but many of them are not—who value the
wonderful amenity they provide. I would point out to the Committee that
there are many royal parks outside central London, and it is
with that in mind that we tried to target a particular
concern.
I do not
think that there is any likelihood of the royal parks soon leaving the
hands of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It is important
to remember that in relation to compulsory purchase, particularly in
central London, large tracts of Crown estate land are outside the scope
of the Bill unless we protect them individually. I hope that the
Minister has taken account of what we have said, because it is an
important point. It would be a crying shame if, given the importance of
much Crown estate land throughout the country, we bypassed the
interests of residents and amenity groups in the vicinity by not giving
credence to their concerns. It would be perverse in many ways if the
Secretary of State had cartĂ(c) blanchĂ(c) to develop those
areas, which are regarded by many people almost as common land, given
that we rightly have all the safeguards in place for the compulsory
purchase of privately owned
land.
4.15
pm
Stephen
Hammond:
I thank my hon. Friend for that valuable
contribution—not least the clarification with regard to his own
constituency and the shaft at Hyde park, for which there might be
relevant interested parties—as it offered a
clear indication of what “relevant interested parties”
might be. I am disappointed that the Minister will not accept that the
term “relevant and interested parties”, while it may
cause minor ambiguity, would not give cartĂ(c) blanchĂ(c) for
interest groups with no particular local or relevant
interest—they would be ruled out. The amendment makes it quite
clear which groups would be
relevant.
As the
Minister rightly pointed out, the thrust of a number
of our amendments has been concern to ensure appropriate consultation.
We are worried that there has not been enough consultation with
outside parties
throughout.
The other
issue is the limiting of discretionary powers. I hear the
Minister’s points, but I hope that he will
think carefully about whether there is some suitable wording
that he could accept and that we could
consider. However, I do not wish to press the
Committee and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause
52
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 28 November 2007 |