Clause
56
Application
of Act to
extensions
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Stephen
Hammond:
In the same spirit as my comments on clause 54, I
want to clarify some points with the Minister. Clause 56 effectively
allows most of the provisions in the Bill to apply to any proposed
extension of the Crossrail network. Does that mean any extension that
is carried out under an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992? I
can see that if the network is expanded, it should
receive the same statutory support as planned under the network.
However, unless I have read the clause completely wrongly, would not an
extension to the Crossrail network that occurred or was proposed in the
construction period re-hybridise the Bill? The extension would then be
subject to the same scrutiny that the hon. Member for Leicester, South
has indicated he experienced and
enjoyed.
Mr.
Harris:
I strongly suspect that the hon. Gentleman has
read the clause completely wrongly, but I shall try to explain. Clause
56 allows any TWA order that relates to a proposed extension of
Crossrail or to provision of a facility connected with Crossrail to
apply to any provision of the Bill, with any modifications necessary to
the order, or to provide that any provision of the Bill should have
effect as if the extension were part of Crossrail.
Let me explain the purpose of
Clause 56. As the hon. Gentleman knows from earlier debates, the Bill
establishes a bespoke regime for Crossrail. It modifies
and disapplies various pieces of legislation, and
replaces them with a tailor-made regime that is based heavily on that
created by the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996.
Indeed, he will recall from our debate last week
that the Bill creates a bespoke planning and railway regulatory regime
for Crossrail. If a TWA
order is subsequently sought for an extension to Crossrail—for
example, to Reading or Ebbsfleet—or for a new Crossrail facility
such as a new station, the TWA order cannot necessarily apply the same
regime to the works as is established by the Bill. The reason is that,
as a form of delegated legislation, TWA orders are limited in their
ability to modify the application of
legislation.
Stephen
Hammond:
For the purposes of clarity, is the Minister
saying that a TWA order cannot extend
Crossrail?
Mr.
Harris:
TWA orders have their own scrutiny
mechanism, which would apply to any future extension.
Any future extension would have to be considered separately, although
not as part of a hybrid
Bill.
Stephen
Hammond:
I am following the Minister’s logic, but I
think that, in fact, I read the clause correctly, and I still have not
had the answer to my question. The question was whether any route
extension to Crossrail can be made without it being subject to hybrid
Bill provisions, such that it does not require the same
scrutiny—nor present the same possibility of
petitioning—as was the case for the original route. If that is
the correct position, it is a curious one.
Mr.
Harris:
It is my exact understanding that any future
proposal to extend Crossrail—albeit there is no such proposal at
present—could be achieved through a TWA order rather than
through the hybrid Bill process. Perhaps I could continue to the end of
my remarks, and if the hon. Gentleman then has further questions I
shall be happy to answer them.
The clause would allow any TWA
order to make the necessary provision to ensure that any extension or
new facility was subject to the same regime as the Crossrail scheme
covered by the Bill. The Government believe that that
makes perfect sense. It would be confusing and unhelpful if one regime
applied to parts of Crossrail and another applied to others. Having
said that, there are safeguards. Certain provisions of the Bill that
deal with extension of compulsory purchase powers, listed buildings,
buildings in conservation areas and ancient monuments are excluded from
such application. Any TWA order that sought to apply the Crossrail Bill
regime would of course follow the normal procedures for such orders.
Those affected would have the opportunity to object to any aspects of
the Bill regime that the order proposed should apply, and have their
concerns heard by an independent inspector as part of the TWA order
process.
I had
intended to conclude my remarks on the amendment at that point, by if
the hon. Gentleman has questions, I shall try my best to answer
them.
Stephen
Hammond:
I do no think that I have any further
supplementary questions, but the Minister has made
some very interesting observations that have expanded on the
information contained in the explanatory notes. Given that, and given
my understanding of the way in which his remarks tie up with the
explanatory notes, we shall certainly wish to the clause revisit on
report.
Mr.
Harris:
For clarification, a TWA order can extend
Crossrail. However, without the provisions in this clause, the same
statutory regime cannot apply. That is why we need the
clause.
Susan
Kramer:
I thank the Minister for that response, but we are
beginning to descend into complete confusion. Is what he is describing
a sort of TWA-plus, so that it essentially builds up to the level of
protection of the hybrid Bill for the extension, or is he saying that
this will be a classic TWA with no more protection than any other
project?
4.45
pm
Mr.
Harris:
I am not sure whether I can add to the comments
that I have already made. The situation remains that a TWA order can
extend Crossrail. The hon. Lady mentioned safeguarding. The decision to
safeguard, for example, the route to Reading is on my desk, and I will
be considering that in the very near future. That would simply keep
options open, so that in the future the Government could choose,
through a TWA order, to extend Crossrail to Reading. Once again, I must
emphasise that that is not what the Government propose at the moment. I
talked merely about safeguarding. However, that is the process that
would have to be gone through if Crossrail were to be extended either
westwards to Reading or south to
Ebbsfleet.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 56 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
Clause 57
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
15
Reinstatement
of discontinued
facilities
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 67, in schedule 15,
page 213, line 39, at end
insert—
‘( ) Where the site
on which the facility was situated prior to discontinuation is
available for re-use, the facility should be reinstated under
sub-paragraph (1) for the original purpose of the facility and on this
site.
( ) Where the site on
which the facility was situated prior to discontinuation is not
available for re-use, the facility should be reinstated under
sub-paragraph (1) on a site as close as possible to this
site.’.
Schedule
15 is obviously important, in that it deals with the steps that must be
taken to reinstate facilities that have necessarily been taken out of
use as a result of the construction of Crossrail.
Paragraph 1(4) provides that the
reinstatement
“need not
be on the site where the facilities were situated prior to
discontinuation.”
Of
course, in a perfect world, once Crossrail was up and running, we would
be able to return buildings and facilities affected by construction to
their original state and, in most cases, to their original location and
no one would know that it had been a construction site before. This is
not a perfect world and I acknowledge that in a number of cases it
might not be possible to do that. However, as the Bill stands, there is
no obligation on the nominated undertaker even to try to reinstate the
disused facilities in their original location.
My amendment is designed to
address that gap in the Bill. If the amendment were to prevail, the
nominated undertaker would have a duty to reinstate the facility on its
original site if it were possible physically to do that. If it were
found to be physically impossible, he would have to reinstate the
facility as near to the original site as he could. That seems a logical
and reasonable way to ensure that the damage caused by Crossrail
construction is, to as great an extent as possible, reversed once the
construction work is done and reversed in such a way that the original
facility is put back in its original state. I look forward to the
Minister commenting on the
amendment.
Mr.
Harris:
As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendment is
perfectly reasonable and sensible. Nevertheless, I ask my colleagues to
resist it if it is pressed to a vote, because it is not appropriate to
this clause. Schedule 15 relates to the reinstatement of facilities
that have been discontinued as a result of the construction of
Crossrail, and provides for conditions to be placed on the deemed
planning permission granted by the Bill for such reinstatement if it
has been environmentally assessed. That reinstatement may be on the
original site or elsewhere within Bill limits, which is to say that it
must be within the limits set out in the Bill for land to be acquired
or used. For example, there is a concrete batching plant at Royal Oak
that falls within an area that we need for a worksite. We are in the
process of negotiating an agreement with the owners of the plant
regarding the provision of a replacement facility. The amendment would
mean that any such replacement facility would have to be placed on, or
as close as possible to, the original
facility.
Proximity to
the original site is not the only, or even the most important, factor
when deciding on the most appropriate site for
reinstated facilities. Generally speaking, Crossrail works will have
altered the site and the former location of a facility may no longer be
the best one. When deciding on the best location for a reinstated
facility, there may be a number of factors to balance, including the
operational needs of the business, the operational needs of Crossrail
and the impact on neighbouring sites. Depending on the circumstances of
the case, it is possible that all of those factors might point towards
relocating the facility. The availability of sufficient land within the
limits set out in the Bill for land to be acquired or used, may also be
a consideration.
That
said, for facilities that we intend to reinstate, we currently expect
to put the replacement facility very close to the site of the original,
where practicable. For instance, there is a Travellers’ site in
Tower Hamlets that will need to be used for a worksite. To meet the
desires of the Travellers and the local authority, we plan to relocate
them to a site adjacent to the existing one. I believe that it overlaps
the existing site. We do not think that it would be appropriate always
to constrain the position of a new site in the manner proposed. It
would not necessarily result in a location that pleased anyone. Local
amenity considerations regarding the site of replacement facilities
could mean that it would be wrong, in planning terms, to reinstate near
an existing
site.
There are a
range of considerations that the Secretary of State might take into
account in the public interest. I should stress, however, that the Bill
provides deemed planning permission for reinstated works only
if an appropriate environmental assessment has been carried out and
reported in an environmental statement accompanying Bill. The amendment
is a touch too prescriptive and represents some form of
over-regulation. I do not think that it is appropriate to this part of
the Bill, although I accept that the intention behind the amendment is
good.
Sir
Peter Soulsby:
I will not harp on for too long about what
was discussed at the hybrid Bill Committee, but I will back up what the
Minister has said. At that Committee, a number of the
representations were made about those who will have to be relocated
temporarily and about whether it was appropriate for them to be
reinstated on the original site or whether some alternatives were to be
found. Those who were to be affected had an opportunity to petition and
many took it.
To
accept the amendment would be too prescriptive. The solutions that were
found were in some cases quite creative, but in almost all cases meant
that the petitioners whose land was to be affected would find
themselves in a better position than they had been
in.
The Minister
mentioned one example of a concrete batching plant.
That was a case that we spent a considerable time on and came to some
particular solutions that were satisfactory to all parties concerned. I
understand the intention behind the clause, but suggest that it is
unnecessary, given the consideration at the hybrid Bill Committee and
that which will be given in another
place.
Stephen
Hammond:
I listened to the hon. Gentleman and noticed that
when the words “concrete batching plant” crossed the
Minister’s lips, there was a facial contortion. I can only
assume that that case took up rather a long time at the Select
Committee. I am glad that they came to some concrete
solutions.
I am glad
that the Minister accepts that we are on to something and I take his
point that there are a range of options beyond those
that I specified in the amendment. As the clause is drafted, there is
no firm obligation to restore sites as close as possible to the
original site. I take the Minister’s point that it will be done
as much as is practically possible in as many cases as possible. I take
his point that the amendment may be worded too tightly. We may wish to
redraft the amendments before Report and I therefore beg to ask leave
to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 68, in
schedule 15, page 214, line 20, leave
out ‘he thinks’ and insert ‘might reasonably be
considered’.
This
amendment and the following one are relatively small modifications to
the wording of paragraph 2 of the schedule, which deals with planning
permission issues that may arise as a result of the reinstatement of
disused facilities.
The amendment simply replaces
the words “he thinks” with “might reasonably be
considered” in the context of the method used by the Secretary
of State to publish any directions relating to deemed planning
permission in his report. I will not dwell long on justification of the
amendment; the Minister will be able to see the thought process behind
it. It implies that
rather than just thinking about the matter he might have to undertake
some consultation. The small change in the wording would allow the
Secretary of State to carry out his or her duties in a way that is
responsible, appropriate and seen to have been
accountable.
Mr.
Harris:
Amendment No. 68 relates to the requirement to
publish any directions given under schedule 15 to condition deemed
planning permission for reinstated facilities or to disapply or modify
the application of schedule 7 to such works. As the duty to publish is
a duty placed on the Secretary of State, she must be the one to decide
what is the most appropriate manner to do so. Moreover, I remind the
hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State is under a general duty to
act reasonably. Although it is a minor change and in the hon.
Gentleman’s view it would not change it a great deal, the
amendment does not add very much to the Bill and I ask him to consider
withdrawing it.
Stephen
Hammond:
It is a minor change but its purpose is to ensure
that the Secretary of State not only acts in a responsible way but is
seen, and proven, to be doing so. That is the thrust of several of our
amendments. I am disappointed that the Minister will not accept the
minor changes in the wording but it is not worth dividing the Committee
on the proposal. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 69, in
schedule 15, page 214, line 23, at
end insert ‘and any other relevant interested
parties’.
I
will not detain the Committee with this amendment, which we wanted to
be on the record. Hon. Members will recognise that it is nearly
identical to several others we have debated this afternoon and in
previous sittings. In order to build and run the
Crossrail network the Government and/or the nominated undertaker will
need to intrude on private property and existing infrastructure, which
is inevitable with a project of this scale. The key thing is to ensure
that it is done in a right and proper
way.
To keep
disruption to a minimum, all affected parties must be kept informed and
consulted and that is the motive behind the amendment. When deemed
planning permission is provided by means of a direction, the details
should be circulated to the owners and occupiers of the land over which
permission is given and to anyone else who might be affected. That
might incur a little additional work for the Secretary of State but it
will ensure that all the appropriate people are made aware of any of
the proposed works. I hope that the Minister will be tempted by this
minor wording
change.
Mr.
Harris:
The hon. Member for Wimbledon started by saying
that the amendment was identical to previous amendments. I am about to
use arguments against it that are identical to previous
arguments.
Schedule
15 already requires copies of the directions to be given to the owners
and occupiers of the land to which the deemed planning permission
relates, and to the relevant planning authority, as the persons with a
clear and identifiable interest. It also requires the Secretary of State
to publish the directions, so that they will be available to those who
are less directly
affected. 5
pm
Amendment No.
69 would create an unnecessary administrative burden. It would require
the Secretary of State to give copies of any directions given under
schedule 15 to
“any
other relevant interested
parties”.
That
would place a potentially large burden on the Secretary of State and it
could lead to lengthy arguments, perhaps even legal arguments, about
whether all “relevant interested parties” have been
identified.
The hon.
Gentleman is a member of a party that consistently and regularly
lectures the Government on over-regulation of industry. I would have
thought that, in the interests of deregulation and simplification
alone, he would wish to withdraw the
amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
But of course if we were to listen to and follow
the logic of the Minister’s answer, that way dictatorship lies,
in that the powers would be invested only and entirely in the autocrat
and they would be subject to no scrutiny at all. I am sure that the
Minister would not want to confuse the over-regulation by his
Government in one area with the under-consultation of his Government in
another area. None the less, I have listened to the Minister and I am
happy to accept his invitation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Schedule
15 agreed
to.
Clause 58
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
