---

Crossrail Bill

Those hon. Members who had the joy of serving on the Public Bill Committee with me will know that we raised a number of concerns about consultation in that often informative and good humoured Committee, and had useful discussions about the subject. The Minister often dismissed my amendments outright, but at other times he appeared to be tempted by them. With that in mind, may I thank him for his letter to Committee members dated 6 December, in which he expanded on some of the points that he raised in Committee about consultation? He made it clear that he was not opposed to the principle of enlarged consultation, but he suggested that there were a number of cases where that process would not be either desirable or practical. He also accepted in that letter that one of the many amendments that I tabled on consultation had some merit. In Committee, the Minister said that he more or less accepted the principle of an amendment that I tabled, and it is now in the form of Government amendment No. 1. It is marginally different from my original amendment and I assume that the wording needed to be tightened up or made legally acceptable. In any case, I hope that we now have a practical and workable consultation procedure. We therefore welcome Government amendment No. 1 and we are disappointed only that the Minister did not accept more of our suggestions. Amendment No. 5 is in the same vein. It relates to consultation, and I tabled a version in Committee. The Minister was tempted by it, and pledged to look at it with his officials. I hoped that we might see it tabled as Government amendment No. 2, but unfortunately that has not materialised. I have therefore tabled my amendment, and it uses the same wording as the Government use in Government amendment No. 1. It has the same format and I hope that the Government will accept it on that basis. As it replicates the Government’s language, it should be consistent with the Government amendment, which should ensure that the phrasing is legally binding, unambiguous and workable. I shall explain why consultation is so important. Crossrail is a massive project that will affect a lot of people. We believe and hope that more people will be positively affected, at least in the long term, than will be adversely affected. None the less, those who will be affected in any way should have the right of consultation. The consultation procedures already employed have been very successful. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and his Select Committee team on such sterling work in hearing from those people who wished to present their case. It is undoubtedly right that the Bill is better for having gone through the hybrid procedure and allowing that consultation. The decisions and hearings of the Committee have enhanced Crossrail and improved its legitimacy in the public eye. Consultation on railway matters is important. The Bill will give the Secretary of State new powers and will modify existing powers, and that will have the effect of interfering with current procedures and the norms of the railway industry. I accept that some of that is necessary and we do not object to the principle. However, we want to be certain that it is done in a way that is transparent and accountable, and that the affected parties are consulted. It is in that context that I return to clause 26, which deals with the amendment of the pre-commencement access contracts by the Office of Rail Regulation. Clause 26(4) gives the Office of Rail Regulation the power to require concerned parties to submit proposals for how it should amend the contracts, and that is welcome. Clause 26(5) provides that the ORR must also consult the Secretary of State as part of the process, but that is where the consultation process ends. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the ORR is open to the concerns of other appropriate and relevant parties, and consults them in an appropriate and relevant fashion. The Minister said in Committee that nothing in the clause prohibits the regulator consulting in such a manner. That is true, but it is not enough. If the Minister accepts that we can amend the Bill elsewhere using words that are similar to"““such other persons (if any) as it considers appropriate””," surely the ORR should have the duty to consult with persons other than the Secretary of State as it considers appropriate. That would be consistent with the duty of consultation. We all agree on the value of consultation and we agree that the ORR could consult in such a way. Why should we not make it an obligation and put it in the Bill? In Committee, the Minister accepted that the amendment had some merit. I believe that it still has. In fact, it has more than that. It is right that if the Government are prepared to accept wording elsewhere that makes a minor change but increases consultation, making it more binding, they should do the same in this clause. I hope that the Minister will reflect on my remarks. The Government have accepted the principle in Government amendment No. 1, and so it would be only right and proper to accept it for clause 26, too.