Clause
11
Permitted
development: time
limit
Stephen
Hammond:
I beg to move amendment No. 12, in
clause 11, page 8, line 3, leave
out subsections (2) and
(3).
The clause does
exactly what it says on the tin—to use the vernacular.
Subsection (1) puts a time limit of 10 years on the provisions
for deemed planning permission, which strikes me as quite generous.
Given the exhaustive examination of the Crossrail route that has
already been made by our friends incarcerated here, 10 years ought to
be ample time in which to grant the appropriate permissions to begin
the work. Therefore, what is the point of that time limit if, by virtue
of subsections (2) and (3), the Secretary of State can ignore it? Those
subsections allow the Secretary of State to extend the time limit that
has already been imposed of any period he chooses.
Will the
Minister enlighten us as to the circumstances in which he anticipates
that it would take more than 10 years from the time that the Bill
receives Royal Assent before the deemed planning permission can result
in development? In 10 years, I would expect the construction of
Crossrail to be well under way. If it is still in its planning stage at
that time, not only will every member of the Committee and Member of
the House be deeply disappointed, but everyone in London will be
also.
Mr.
Harris:
I begin by clarifying for the elimination of all
doubt that I agree with the hon. Gentleman and also expect the
construction of Crossrail to be well under way in 10 years time. I do
not want the Committee to be in any doubt about the Government’s
intention in that regard. Last month, the Prime Minister made an
announcement about Crossrail and said that we expect major works to
start in 2010 and for the first services to be running in 2017. The
Government and the Mayor, as joint sponsors of Crossrail, are confident
that the outlined programme for construction is realistic. On that
basis, we expect all scheduled works to have begun within the 10-year
period provided for in subsection (1).
This is a massive project,
however, and its scale and complexity are such that we believe it is
prudent for Parliament to allow the flexibility that subsections (2)
and (3) provide, so that the project can be completed whatever
perturbations may occur—I guess it is the word
“perturbations” for which the hon. Gentleman wants a
definition. We cannot predict why delays might occur, but I am sure
that hon. Members will join me in hoping that they do not
happen.
Crossrail, as
with any large project, is susceptible to external factors that might
affect the programme. We believe that the flexibility to extend the
period of deemed planning permission is appropriate, and I assure the
Committee that the ability to extend the period of
deemed planning permission that the Bill grants is well precedented. I
shall offer a prize to the first Member who can tell me where that
precedent emerges—the 1996 Act. It should be remembered that
during the construction of the channel tunnel rail link, an extension of
the 10-year planning permission was not required and we do not expect
it to be required on this occasion.
Tom
Brake:
What further thoughts has the Minister had, as he
seeks this extension, about the impact of planning blight, which will
now potentially extend over a much longer
period?
Mr.
Harris:
May I once again clarify that we
do not expect an extension to the 10-year period? The clause will allow
the Secretary of State, in certain circumstances, to secure an
extension, but we do not intend or expect to extend the 10-year limit.
The hon. Gentleman is right about planning blight and the other
complications that would arise in those circumstances, which is one
reason why the Government are determined that construction will begin
as planned in 2010. Further, any extension of deemed planning
permission would be moved by an order subject to annulment by either
House of Parliament.
Mr.
Binley:
I offer my sincere apologies to the Minister. I am
not a lawyer, thank God, being surrounded by them as I am, but will he
explain in simple, non-legal terms the circumstances in which the
Secretary of State at the time might need to overrule on this
particular matter?
Mr.
Harris:
I do not want to be overly
dramatic about the circumstances that might lead at some point to a
major delay in Crossrail. We can all speculate about the effects, for
example, of a terrorist attack either in central London or at the
Crossrail construction site. I shall be frank: I do not want to
speculate about it. However, the process that has already taken up 21
months of Select Committee sittings, and the hybrid Bill process has
already been carried over into two separate Parliaments and one general
election, so do we want an amendment that would mean that we might
conceivably—in unusual circumstances—be forced to go
through the whole process all over again.
The people who framed the 1996
Act knew what they were doing, and I reaffirm what I have already said
to the Committee: the provision was included in the 1996 Act for the
reasons that I have already outlined and the powers were not used. I do
not expect them to be used now. Given the amount of work that has
already gone into this Bill, I hope that the Committee will understand
why the clause, as a safety net, should remain in the
Bill.
Mr.
Field:
I understand why the Minister
wants such a belt-and-braces provision. There are, however, great
distinctions between the 1996 Act and the Bill. In reality, the channel
tunnel was a matter of international prestige. For this
Government—for any Administration in this country—to have
gone back on that deal would have been a disaster internationally,
given the project’s importance. The fear that many of my
constituents have is about planning blight, which I addressed with
regard to earlier clauses this morning. By extending in a relatively
unusual if not entirely unprecedented way from five to 10 years the
normal planning limit, the provision raises a question about the
robustness of the Crossrail financial
package. I appreciate that we will not be able to discuss that issue to
any great extent until almost the final clause, but there are great
concerns about a package that was cobbled together in the first week of
October to everyone’s joy, but, we all felt, with an eye to a
general election campaign. I worry that there will be extensive
planning blight if we extend beyond the five years or even the three
years that the Minister mentioned
earlier.
1.45
pm
I worry about
the time we have spent considering these matters in Parliament. I was
not a member of the Select Committee, but a number of hon. Members have
spent more than 18 months on them. We have gone through the legislative
process, or we will have done within a few months, and we would be in
the worst of all worlds if that financial package was not seen to be
robust.
There is
undoubtedly slightly less clement economic weather ahead, and there is
also a sense in which the project is considered one of great
international prestige. We make a big case for the importance of
international trade and the significance of Crossrail well beyond
London and the south-east. Ministers make that case when they are
trying to convince their Scottish and northern English brethren of the
importance of the project, but it is all too easy to see how the rug
might be pulled
away.
Even for a
large-scale construction project such as this, an extension from five
years to 10 is an unusual provision. I worry that it will give rise
ever more to the view that there is get-out option come year 8 or 9,
that suddenly the funding will not be put together and that the project
will be put on the back burner for decades to come. That is the worst
of all scenarios for my constituents and others who are affected,
simply because they will suffer blight. That blight could be present
for many years to come.
Most of my constituents are
concerned about the noise and the disruption. As the Minister knows, on
all occasions I have tried to make the case for the importance of
Crossrail. A number of my constituents in parts of central London would
prefer it if I came out against Crossrail, but I am in
favour—provided that we can get on and get it
done.
At the end of
the process, we will have a tremendous new asset not just for central
London, but for the country as a whole. The worst of all worlds for my
constituents would be to have such blight hanging over their properties
and their lives for many years to come. The Minister’s proposal
to extend from the normal five years to 10 raises many
questions.
Sir
Peter Soulsby (Leicester, South) (Lab):
I rise to support the Minister’s view. As we are all well aware,
this is an enormously complex project with innumerable elements. Some
of those elements will be much more straightforward to deliver than
others, and some are rather more fundamental to the project than
others. As those complex elements are brought together to produce the
whole, some might be more difficult to deliver in the time frame than
might seem apparent at the outset.
I share the Minister’s
hope and expectation that the project will be safely delivered within
the 10-year
period. I am sure that we all share that hope, but I see the provision
not as a get-out clause, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and
Westminster described it, but as a sensible fall-back position should
there be unexpected difficulties in delivering some elements. We all
hope that it will never need to be used, but it is wise to have
it. We should remember
that the provision is being included in such a way as to enable
Parliament to continue to scrutinise. Parliamentary approval will be
required for any extension beyond the 10-year period. Given the
complexity of the project, the uncertainty of delivering it all within
the 10-year time frame and the scrutiny that would be necessary should
the power be exercised, we should support the clause as it
stands.
Tom
Brake:
I rise to echo the concerns that have been
expressed from this side of the Committee. The clause creates a bit of
wriggle room and takes the pressure off. With a project such as this,
we need to keep the pressure on and the momentum going. There is here
the potential to delay matters. If the Government roll out an ID cards
programme and the costs mushroom dramatically beyond those anticipated,
they would have the flexibility to use this measure as a means of
slowing down expenditure on the Crossrail project to pay for those cost
overruns. I need reassurance from the Minister, therefore, that there
is no potential to delay the
project.
Jeremy
Wright (Rugby and Kenilworth) (Con): Welcome to the Chair,
Lady Winterton.
I
declare an interest in that I am a lawyer, which means that I shall
keep very quiet in the Committee, although there is one point on which
I would appreciate the Minister’s clarification. Hon. Members
who have spoken in this portion of our discussions have assumed that
the works in question must be completed in a 10-year period. The
Minister has said that there are many unforeseeable eventualities that
might affect the progress of a particular piece of work. However, it is
also important to bear it in mind that clause 11(1) says that the
development consisting of scheduled work must
begin
“not later than the
end of 10 years”.
Any
delays in a development, therefore, will not be affected by the removal
of subsections (2) and
(3).
Mr.
Harris:
Before I address the serious concerns mentioned by
the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, I congratulate
the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington on managing to include ID
cards in a Crossrail debate.
The hon. Member for Cities of
London and Westminster made his case well in relation to potential
blight. He has raised his concerns on that subject on a number of
occasions, I know. Let me put it this way: Crossrail must happen, and
it will—whether under this scheme or not. It is not an optional
extra for the city of London. It must be built, and most of us accept
that.
In the
extremely hypothetical circumstance of a delay that forced the loss of
the planning permission conferred by the Bill, a future Government
would in
any case have to repeat the process, start from scratch and go through
the whole hybrid Bill process so as to get to where we are now, and
start building. The hon. Member for Wimbledon is suggesting, I think,
that, if there were a delay in starting construction and if power did
not exist to extend permission, Crossrail would not be built and that
those of his constituents who are in danger of blight could carry on
regardless and would be at no risk of blight in future. That cannot be
the case, because Crossrail has to happen. If it does not happen now, a
future Government will have to build it. In common with all members of
the Committee, I want Crossrail to be built as soon as
possible.
Mr.
Field:
I shall not draw a direct comparison, but let me
make the observation that at various times there have been proposals
for different tube lines. Anyone who lives in parts of north London
around Muswell Hill or Cranleigh Gardens will have seen maps from the
late 1930s indicating possible extensions of the Northern line that
would have covered those districts. It is perhaps to their own good
that they remained outside the tube
network.
The notion
that Crossrail has to be built is a little wide of the mark. It has
been talked about since as early as 1948, and proposals for it have
existed for a considerable time. Conservative Members are simply
concerned about financial robustness. If the Minister is right that
work will begin in the next three years, that will probably be under
the current Administration, but if they fail in that regard, I do not
see why my constituents or constituents elsewhere in London and the
south-east should suffer potential
blight.
Mr.
Harris:
All I can do is repeat the assurances that have
been given by the Prime Minister and by others in government on the
Government’s commitment to going ahead with the stated schedule
of works, which we have already made public. We have learned lessons
from the highly successful channel tunnel rail link and applied them to
the Crossrail proposals, not least in handing the task of delivery to
an autonomous delivery agent—Cross London Rail Links
Ltd—that can recruit the people it needs with the right
“megaproject” experience and expertise. I am confident
that the project will come in on time and on budget, and will begin in
2010 as we have said. The project costs include a carefully calculated
contingency reserve and it has been tested in a full quantified risk
analysis.
I do not
want the Committee to receive any impression other than that the
Government are committed to Crossrail construction beginning in 2010.
The measure in the Bill is a standard measure that must be applied to
an infrastructure project of this size. I predict that this measure
will be applied to any future infrastructure project of such a size
when a hybrid Bill is
involved.
I do not
want anyone to glean from the comments that have been made, either by
me or by any other Committee member, that the Government are anything
other than fully committed to the project timetable that we have
already outlined. In that context, I hope that the hon. Member for
Wimbledon will withdraw his amendment.
Stephen
Hammond:
I do not think that any
Opposition Member has any doubt that the Government wish to build
Crossrail. However, in this short debate, we have
heard two quite telling comments from my hon. Friend the Member for
Cities of London and Westminster—one about blight and one about
finance—and a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for
Rugby and Kenilworth, who mentioned exactly why my amendment is so
relevant.
The clause
is about not Crossrail being completed, but its being started.
Unfortunately, the Minister is in the world of the unknown unknowns and
the problem is that he cannot tell us what one of those unknowns might
be.
Mr.
Harris:
Because it is not
known.
Stephen
Hammond:
This is a problem for the Minister and the fatal
flaw in his argument. We are seeking reassurance about what event he
might want the exceptional power for and, because he cannot give us
that reassurance—he has been unable to do so—I would like
to test the will of the Committee on the
amendment.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
8.
Division
No.
3
]
Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 11 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
Clause 12
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
