---

Crossrail Bill

The amendments are very much of a probing nature. When we reconsidered the Committee proceedings, it seemed to me that we had not finally sorted out a number of things. We said that we would need to return to them on Report because the Government’s intentions were not clear. That point was at the heart of the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). Clause 57 relates to the statutory framework that would govern a future extension of Crossrail. We have some concerns about that, so we want to understand exactly what the Government intend. Our first concern relates to why only some of the Bill’s provisions would apply to an extension, and the second relates to the possible need for legal re-hybridisation if there were an extension. The core question is whether a substantial extension would require the same treatment as the original Crossrail route. Our first concern is addressed directly in the amendments, which would have the effect of ensuring that there was no selectivity in applying the Bill’s provisions to any extension of Crossrail. Subsection (4) states that certain provisions of the Transport and Works Act 1992 will be specifically excluded from applying to an extension. They relate to the compulsory acquisition of land, heritage protection controls and rights of entry in relation to English Heritage. We need reassurance from the Minister. What is it about those provisions that makes them applicable to the current route, but not to an extension? Those provisions will be specifically excepted from an extension to Crossrail. As for the remainder of the Act, the Government want the power to pick and choose which provisions would or would not apply to an extension. That seems inconsistent and irresponsible. We have subjected the current route and the current legislation to an extensive and intensive period of parliamentary scrutiny, so if there were an extension to the route there would be an injustice if petitioners in that case were not able to do the same. When I raised the issue in Committee, the Minister said my proposal would not be workable. Are we saying that just because the Minister considers something unworkable we will not put justice into effect? Does it mean that we should not introduce legally binding provisions? Apparently, the Minister’s rationale was that whereas the powers required to build the current Crossrail route are defined by an Act of Parliament that has authority to disapply and modify the application of existing legislation, an extension to the route only needs legislation under the Transport and Works Act, which does not have such authority? Is the Minister satisfied that the point is merely technical? Is he happy that the clause allows only certain elements of the Bill to apply to an extension? Is he satisfied that a substantial extension of the route—perhaps from Maidenhead to Reading—would be dealt with only under the provisions of the Transport and Works Act, or does he think that if he took legal advice he would find that re-hybridisation of that part of the route was required and primary legislation was needed? It seems unusual that there should be one legislative scrutiny regime for the current Crossrail route but a different one for any future extension. It is possible to understand why relatively minor changes to the Crossrail network—a new facility here, a station renovation there—would be dealt with under the Transport and Works Act and would not warrant any exhaustive procedures. However, where Crossrail is being extended—in the exact circumstances that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead outlined—should the people affected have the right to take part in exactly the same sort of consultation procedure afforded to those affected by the original route? Legal advice from counsel, which is already circulating among Ministers and the Opposition, suggests that this is an interesting part of the law. The Government’s reassurance that an extension to the route would be covered purely by a Transport and Works Act order is at least contestable. The Minister needs to give the House some reassurance. I see in the Chamber a number of hon. Members who served on the Select Committee for a long time. They will know better than most that the plans for constructing Crossrail provoked a large number of organisations and people, who felt that their lives and businesses would be affected by the project, to come forward and present petitions to the Committee. The Select Committee procedures gave them the opportunity to have their say and to be heard. If the route of Crossrail is to be extended, are the Government satisfied, in legal terms, with a situation in which people whose homes or businesses are affected by the extension to the route will not have the same protection and rights afforded to those affected by the original route? The Government are going to leave themselves in a very difficult position—one that will be open to legal challenge. Is that desirable? The Minister needs to give the House a clear indication that he has consulted his officials and is absolutely convinced that there is no possibility of a legal challenge to the Bill on the basis that any extension to Crossrail would be dealt with purely by a Transport and Works Act order. These are probing amendments. We remain extremely concerned that if the clause stands as it is, there is the potential for a legal challenge to the whole Bill.