I beg to move amendment No. 51, in clause 32, page 22, line 40, at end insert—

‘( ) Any person who suffers loss by the directions under this section shall be entitled to be compensated by the Secretary of State.’.

Clause 32 is another example of measures that we have seen consistently during the course of the Bill, in which the Government give themselves more power to direct the private sector to comply with the needs of Crossrail. As we have said before, this is an exceptional undertaking and, therefore, it is an exceptional Bill, which requires exceptional powers. We have said several times that such powers are often wholly necessary. We have seen such measures in previous Bills, as the Minister often reminded us last week.

However worthy the clause, I doubt whether the Minister will fail to reflect our amendment. Do the Government want to be seen to be digging up the centre of London without due regard to people maybe adversely affected by the project? I certainly applaud the exhaustive work done by the Select Committee in listening to the concerns of individuals and businesses on which the project will have an impact. For the same reason, I welcome the clauses providing for compensation to be paid to the railway asset operator, who may suffer financial loss as a result of Government intervention. We are therefore surprised and concern that there is no provision for compensation in the clause.

My amendment proposes that at the end of line 40 in clause 32, we insert the words:

“Any person who suffers loss by the directions under this section shall be entitled to be compensated by the Secretary of State.”

The clause enables the Government to force an owner of a railway facility to open it up for the purposes of  constructing Crossrail. It provides that the ORR must approve the terms of any such imposed contract except, crucially, the terms relating to financial charges. In other words, the Government can demand to enter into an access contract with the facility operator but they can also decide how much they would pay for the privilege. The matter is apparently not open to negotiation, nor to independent scrutiny via the regulator, which strikes me as unfair.

The purpose of my amendment therefore is to ensure that facility owners do not suffer financial loss as a result of any Government intervention. If a facility owner is forced to enter into a contract with the Government under terms which mean that they get less than they would normally get for such a contract they should be appropriately compensated to make up the difference. As I said at the outset, I accept that a project of this nature requires the Secretary of State to take on certain exceptional powers, but I do accept that the private sector or the private citizen should necessarily suffer as the clause implies they will. I look forward to receiving some reassurance from the Minister.