Clause 40
Crossrail Bill
11:30 am
Stephen Hammond (Shadow Minister, Transport; Wimbledon, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 23, in clause 40, page 27, line 2, at end insert
‘, but is an asset which enables the construction, maintenance and operation of Crossrail to occur.’.
In the same vein as many clauses in the Bill, clause 40 contains provisions to ensure that those charged with the building and operating of the Crossrail network are afforded all possible assistance by those who own and operate existing rail assets. Specifically, it gives the nominated undertaker the power to require facilities owners and operators to co-operate with them by force of an agreement. The explanatory notes state that Crossrail will, by necessity,
“interact with the existing railways”,
so it is certainly obvious that, as set out in the clause, there is a need for this provision. My intention in tabling the amendment is to ensure that there is absolutely no scope for doubt as to which of those assets we are talking about. I do not wish to return to the alcoholic allusions that we went through last Thursday—I think we have probably done that one to death. My concerns in this case, however, are similar. As the clause stands, it seems that the nominated undertaker can take action with regard to any railway asset anywhere. Although I am sure that the Minister is about to reassure us that the nominated undertaker will not use that power haphazardly or unsystematically, I cannot see any reason why we cannot specify on the face of the Bill that the assets that require the exceptional powers must be those that relate to Crossrail. Otherwise, there is scope for ambiguity. I believe that the amendment is rational and that the Bill would benefit from its inclusion.