Examination of Witnesses (Questions 6900
- 6919)
6900. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, it is a little
complicated and, I must say, I was very confused until very recently.
The position is that the two-track scheme, which is what was originally
being considered in 2002 and 2003, has been safeguarded, but the
Promoters are clear, and I do not think Bexley disagree with this,
that that would be a thoroughly unsatisfactory solution because
it would put in jeopardy the efficient operation of the rest of
the Crossrail network. Mr Berryman will tell me if I have got
this wrong, but, if Crossrail is going to go to Ebbsfleet at any
point, then it is almost certainly going to have to go under the
four-track scheme because that is the only way to give sufficient
operational robustness. The four tracks are not safeguarded. The
safeguarding is being consulted upon at the present time.
6901. BARONESS FOOKES: By whom?
6902. MS LIEVEN: Well, the Secretary
of State is consulting the local authorities and other stakeholders.
6903. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, can the Government
bring forward amendments at the recommittal in terms of either
Option 1 or Option 2?
6904. MS LIEVEN: Option 2, my Lord, as
I understand it, would not require any amendment to the Bill;
it is merely asking your Lordships to make a recommendation. Option1,
as I understand it, could be brought forward as an amendment and
would not require resubmission to the other Place. I am afraid
Mr Berryman has used the dreaded word "re-hybridisation";
it would not be a rehybridising amendment which means it would
not have to be considered afresh by a House of Commons Committee.
There will be a number, as I understand it, of minor amendments
to the Bill in the course of the House of Lords; for example,
there were always amendments to protective provisions.
6905. CHAIRMAN: We have the whole question
of the railway clauses, have we not?
6906. MS LIEVEN: Indeed, my Lord. So
those amendments are not considered rehybridising and, therefore,
they do not have to go back to a fresh Commons Committee, so I
would put it as a relatively painless kind of amendment—relatively
so.
6907. CHAIRMAN: They would be Lords amendments
that would go back to the House of Commons for amendment in the
ordinary way. It is Public Bill procedure.
6908. MS LIEVEN: Exactly, my Lord. Yes.
6909. BARONESS FOOKES: But even Option
1 is a recommendation for something to happen, not a requirement?
Had it been a requirement I take it that would have been constitutionally
different?
6910. MS LIEVEN: I believe that is right,
my Lord. I think all this Committee can do is recommend—that
is my recollection from earlier proceedings—and I think
that is all Mr Cameron is asking the Committee to do.
6911. MR CAMERON: My Lord, that is right,
"to recommend that the Secretary of State establish powers
... and to amend the bill as follows". We are asking the
Committee not just to recommend but to amend the Bill in those
terms but, as Ms Lieven has just indicated, that would not be
a rehybridisation, if that is the right word, of the Bill and,
therefore, it would not, in effect, extend the scope of the Bill
and would not need to go back to the other House. That is why
we have put it forward in this way, because it is a means by which
the Committee can indicate its support in the future for an extension
to Ebbsfleet, if the Committee is persuaded of these matters,
without causing any procedural difficulties. That is why we have
put it forward in this way.
6912. CHAIRMAN: All right, Mr Cameron.
I think we had better hear you on this.
6913. MR CAMERON: Thank you, my Lord.
6914. The case put forward by the London Borough
of Bexley is that all possible and practical steps should be taken
to facilitate the extension of Crossrail from Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet.
That is the point that Bexley wish to make. The reason Bexley
wish those steps to be taken is that the extension would secure
very significant social, economic and regeneration benefits.
6915. CHAIRMAN: Is there any disagreement
about that?
6916. MR CAMERON: No, my Lord, not as
I understand it, and I would hope that we will not trouble the
Committee for too long on the details of those benefits, although
we would wish to draw them to the Committee's attention.
6917. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but they would all
have to be explored under the 1992 Act if an extension was proposed?
6918. MR CAMERON: They would, my Lord.
The purpose of the amendment that we are seeking is to bring any
Order made under the 1992 Act within the provisions that would
apply to nationally significant projects, and the purpose of that
is that there would then have to be a resolution for both Houses
on the principle, so in effect one would have a hybrid Transport
and Works Act Order, and during the course of the Transport and
Works Act Order inquiry there could be no challenge to the principle
of the Order. That is what we are seeking to achieve; that is
what happened at Stratford, and the Order in that case was approved
and went ahead. So we are trying to introduce a method whereby
the principle of an extension can be considered by both Houses
of Parliament to avoid unnecessary and extended and protracted
investigation of those matters at a subsequent inquiry.
6919. CHAIRMAN: If we were to accept
your suggestion in Option 1 would that, in itself, affect the
principle of the Bill?
| 
