Amendment No. 10 is necessarily a consequential amendment to amendment No. 9, which I am sure that the Minister will wish to accept.

The clause deals with the extinguishment of private rights of way. Subsection (2) extinguishes private rights of way,

“in the case of land acquired after the coming into force of this Act, at the appropriate time.”

It is clearly a sensible power; private rights of way could not and should not take precedence over land acquired for the building and construction of Crossrail, and, therefore, cannot take precedence over the land on which the railway is also operating.

However, subsection (4), which amendment No. 9 seeks to address, appears to act contrary to the purpose of subsection (2)(b). Clause 8(4) states that:

“Subsection (2)(b) does not apply to a right of way that is excepted”,

which effectively counters and reverses subsection (2)(b), rendering the provisions in it null and void, because the Secretary of State can direct that the right of way be excepted from extinguishment. It seems to us that the Secretary of State could effectively acquire land for the purposes of construction, yet allow the private rights of way to persist. That would seem to be potentially injurious to the citizen and disruptive to the building and operation of Crossrail.

If the intent of clause 8(4) is to allow the Secretary of State to regrant rights of way after the end of construction, during which land that may have been required for build but not operational purposes had its private rights of way extinguished, that is understandable. If that is the intent, perhaps the Minister will explain how subsection (4) will achieve it. Otherwise, subsections (2)(b) and (4) appear to be contrary in purpose. Therefore, the amendment would help the Government by removing that contrary aim.