Schedule
16
Protective
Provisions
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 75, in
schedule 16, page 218, line 23, leave
out from ‘arbitration’ to end of line
27.
The
Chairman:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 76, in schedule 16, page 225, line 4, leave
out from ‘arbitration’ to end of line
8.
No. 77, in
schedule 16, page 229, line 33, leave
out from ‘arbitration’ to end of line
37.
No. 78, in
schedule 16, page 232, line 45, leave
out from ‘arbitration’ to end of line
49.
No. 79, in
schedule 16, page 236, line 6, leave
out from ‘arbitration’ to end of line
10.
No. 80, in
schedule 16, page 239, line 46, leave
out from ‘arbitration’ to end of line 2 on page
240.
Stephen
Hammond:
Amendments Nos. 75 to 80 are identical, in that
they would make exactly the same adjustment to each of the six parts of
schedule 16. The schedule gives protection to various bodies whose work
might be affected by the construction and operation of
the Crossrail network. It deals, in turn, with highways,
utilities, water issues, electronic communication
networks, waterways and finally the Port of London Authority. In each
case, there is a sub-paragraph that deals with dispute resolution.
Disputes will be settled by arbitration if the two parties agree; if
the two parties do not agree, then, with the proviso that the dispute
is not about money, it will be up to the Secretary of State to appoint
someone to find a
solution.
I do not
want to regurgitate the concern that we have had all the way along
about arbitration. All I will say is that, given the
fact that there will be a very real relationship between the nominated
undertaker and the Secretary of State, we do not want the situation
where—we have been through this before—the defendant is
trying his own case.
It seems to me that the
arbitration process that should be employed should be fair and
independent, and the Secretary of State should not intervene in that
process. The decision of a third party arbitrator will
enjoy the benefits of authority and impartiality. The
Secretary of State, however much they believe themselves to have a duty
of responsibility, cannot be seen to be independent. Therefore, it
should not be the job of the Secretary of State to resolve disputes of
this
kind.
Mr.
Harris:
Schedule 16 contains protection for
various bodies and statutory undertakers whose
interests and functions may be affected by the powers of the Bill. In
each case, there is provision for determination of disputes, with the
nominated undertaker to be referred to arbitration if the parties agree
or if the dispute relates to the amount of payment. Otherwise, the
dispute is determined by a person appointed by the relevant Secretary
of State; that is the Secretary of State for Transport, together
with—where it is a different Secretary of State—the
Secretary of State who has the responsibility of overseeing the
statutory undertaking in question. In other words, for the water
industry it would be the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs, and so
on.
The hon.
Gentleman’s amendments would require all disputes to be referred
to arbitration. May I refer him to the response that I gave in relation
to the similar issues in respect of amendments Nos. 26 and 27? Giving
the Secretary of State the ability to determine disputes on various
matters is well precedented for projects of national significance and
follows similar provisions in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996.
Arbitration can be a time-consuming and costly experience that may not
be consistent with the timely implementation of the project.
In this case, however, we have
gone beyond the precedent in CTRL in spelling out that disputes are to
be determined by a person appointed by the Secretary of State and we
have also provided that any disputes about the amount of money payable
will be settled by arbitration: such disputes would not hold up
implementation of the project in the way that a dispute over approval
of plans of the works might do. The statutory undertakers concerned
have the additional reassurance that the Secretary of State responsible
for them will be one of the Secretaries of State appointing the person
to determine the
dispute.
The
provisions have been discussed with the statutory undertakers concerned
and include amendments that
have been agreed with them. The Secretary of State
has given assurances about how the powers will be exercised. My
understanding is that the statutory undertakers are now content with
these arrangements and I urge the hon. Gentleman not to seek to impose
such a modification on the arrangements when they are not seeking that
themselves. I invite him to withdraw his
amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
As the Minister said, we have had this discussion
several times. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act has been our precedent
on a number of occasions although I think that we have accepted this
afternoon that we should not necessarily follow it slavishly.
I listened carefully to the
Minister. The latter part of his argument was the most compelling in
that he said that he has already undertaken consultation and has
already worked with the nominated bodies that might be affected by the
clause. They have had the chance to put in their own amendment, which
has been accepted. That being so, it would be wrong of me to try to
impose something that was not being sought by the people I am seeking
to protect and who already feel that they have the protection. I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Schedule
16 agreed
to.
Clause
59
Power
to devolve functions of Secretary of State
Question proposed, That
the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Stephen
Hammond:
This will be a short contribution, but it is
obviously an important clause. It will allow the Secretary of State to
devolve some of the powers that she has given herself
to other bodies. Certain provisions in this Bill qualify for being
liable to be devolved either to the Greater London authority and/or
Transport for London. Could the Minister tell us in what circumstances
the Secretary of State envisaged delegating the exceptional powers that
she has taken and the rationale behind
that?
Mr.
Harris:
Clause 59 allows the Secretary of State, by means
of an order, to devolve certain provisions of the Bill to the Greater
London authority, Transport for London or to both. This power is
necessary to allow the flexibility for the Crossrail project to be
taken forward by these bodies, if that is in the best interest of
delivering the project most efficiently.
To answer the hon.
Gentleman’s question directly, he will know that it is intended
that the Mayor and TfL will be responsible for the delivery of the
project, and the powers in clause 59 might be needed to facilitate
their taking the project forward. That said, I have to disappoint him
because it is not yet clear which of the powers that are listed in
subsection (7) will be devolved to the Mayor and/or TfL or whether the
project governance arrangements that have been announced could be
better delivered by other means. However, we believe it is right that
the Secretary of State should be capable of devolving specific powers
in the Bill if that is what is decided should
happen.
Stephen
Hammond:
I note the Minister’s comment
that it is not yet clear whether the
Government’s provisions in the Bill might be delivered by better
means. Does he intend to come to that conclusion before the Bill
completes its passage through the
House?
Mr.
Harris:
I remain to be corrected, but when I referred to
governance I did not mean anything in the Bill. Not every detail of
governance is included in the Bill and I would not anticipate having to
bring forward amendments to that
effect.
To set my
general remarks in context, it might help the
Committee if I summarise the proposed project governance arrangements.
Cross London Rail Links Ltd will continue as a project delivery vehicle
for Crossrail. The Department for Transport will remain as a co-sponsor
of the project and will form a joint sponsors board with Transport for
London to supervise the project. The Department and TfL will execute a
series of formal arrangements that will specify how the project will be
taken forward. CLRL will become a wholly owned subsidiary of TfL, but
with a level of independence needed to focus solely on delivery of the
Crossrail project for its joint
clients.
CLRL will
have a board dominated by independent, non-executive
directors chosen for their skills in delivering so-called
mega-projects—not a phrase that I am particularly comfortable
with— and free to appoint a world-class team at market rates.
The written statement issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of
State for Transport that accompanied the publication of the heads of
terms provides more detail about how the Department and the Mayor, as
co-sponsors, will take the project forward. I hope that the explanation
that I have given and the material with which I supplied each member of
the Committee yesterday persuades hon. Members to accept the
clause.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause
59
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
60
Correction
of deposited
plans
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 71, in
clause 60, page 36, line 14, at
end insert—
‘( ) The
Secretary of State, upon making an application under subsection (1),
shall give notice that he has made such an application to all those
affected by such an
application.
( ) The Secretary
of State, upon receiving the decision of the justices under subsection
(2), shall inform all those affected by the decision as to the outcome
of the application made under subsection
(1).’.
The
clause sets out what will happen if a mistake is discovered in the
deposited plans, or in the grandly named book of reference. The
Secretary of State may apply to two suitable justices—however
widely or tightly that may be defined—in order to correct any
inaccuracies identified. A copy of the justices’s decision will
be deposited in the House of Commons and in the offices of the relevant
local
authorities.
That
is fine, but I do not think that it goes far enough. I fear that there
may well be a situation whereby people affected by mistakes, and
therefore changes to the deposited plans, are likely to remain
blissfully unaware of them
unless they are frequent visitors either to the Private Bill Office here
or to the offices of their local
authority. To avoid
such a circumstance arising, it seems only right that, if the Secretary
of State is applying to the justices for the mistake to be remedied,
those who will be affected by the change when the Secretary of State
refers that case to the justices and sees their decision should be
informed. That is what the amendment would do. It would ensure that
those who are affected by the changes are informed that the changes are
about to take
place.
Mr.
Harris:
The clause sets out the procedure for the
correction of the deposited plans or the book of reference should any
errors be found in the description of the land or the ownership or
occupation of the land. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment, if
approved, would require the Secretary of State, before making an
application to two justices of the peace, to amend the deposited plans
or book of reference deposited with the Bill to notify first those
affected by the application. It would also require the Secretary of
State to notify the same people of the justices’s
decision.
I understand
the intent behind the amendment. Those directly affected by any
proposed amendment to the plans or book of reference should clearly be
aware that such a change is being sought. However, I point out that
that is already provided for in subsection (1), which requires the
Secretary of State to give not less than 10 days’ notice to the
owners and occupiers of the land. That is the subject of the proposed
amendment, and, once an application has been determined and a
certificate issued, copies of the certificate are lodged in Parliament
and with the relevant local authority. I assure the hon. Gentleman,
therefore, that the plans and book of reference cannot be amended in
secret, without those most directly affected knowing about it. I had
hoped that those provisions would not prove contentious, as similar
provisions are common in private Acts for
railways.
5.15
pm
Sir
Peter Soulsby:
Give us an
example.
Mr.
Harris:
I understand that the clause is modelled on a
similar clause in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act
1996.
Stephen
Hammond:
I thought that the Minister, for the sake of
novelty, was going to use the 1895
Act.
Mr.
Harris:
The hon. Gentleman is just showing off now. With
the explanation that I have given, I hope that he will feel able to
withdraw his
amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
I think I will feel able to do that, but there
was never any suggestion that either the hearing or the plans were to
be conducted in secret. I take what subsection (1) says, but the
amendment would add to that, because the clause implies that notice be
given to the owners of the land that will be affected by the change.
However, other people might also be affected. Also, as I understand it,
the clause
does not necessarily require that those people be informed of the
decision, only that the decision be placed in the House of Commons or
in local area
offices.
Mr.
Harris:
The hon. Gentleman refers to people, other than
the owners of the property, who may be affected. He has not submitted
an amendment to that effect, but if he had, is there not a danger that
this would be a nebulous and never-ending process if every person who
believed that they had been affected would have to be
notified?
Stephen
Hammond:
Actually, the amendment states “all those
affected”, so there is no question of it being nebulous or
open-ended. There is a clear definition and I have tried in the
amendment to find some way of defining who should be notified. I accept
that “all those affected” might be a wide proposal and I
have listened to the Minister and think that he is clearly trying to
reassure me that my fears are ungrounded given what is already in the
Bill. I, therefore, beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
60 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
