Certainly, we have already had one attempt this morning to introduce finance into our discussions, and the Minister congratulated the hon. Member for Richmond Park on the elegant manner in which she tried to inject the issue into this morning’s debate. I was tempted to speak in the debate on her amendment, but I resisted the temptation to do so, because I expected to have the opportunity to discuss my two new clauses and to speak on clause stand part.

As the Minister said, clause 65 provides for the expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State as a consequence of the Act to be paid for out of money provided by Parliament. It is a standard clause and we have no problems with it; we do not object to it. I have no doubt that, subject to commercial confidentiality, the Government are keen, or certainly have proved be keen, to provide details of the Crossrail package. In that spirit, I want to offer my thanks to the Minister both the briefing that he gave to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, who is a Liberal Democrat spokesman, and me. I thank him, too, for the package that he provided last night for Committee members—that package is now is in the Library. His spirit of transparency and generosity is appreciated. However—as the Minister would expect, there is always a “however”—the Bill gives explanations of the moneys provided by Parliament but not by other bodies. It does not provide, either, for updates to be delivered to Parliament on the subject of funding and costing. That was what I might have said about with the hon. Lady’s amendment this morning: although I thought it an excellent and elegant amendment, it was a one-off, and did not require an annual statement to be made to Parliament.

My new clauses go further than the hon. Lady’s amendment. We appreciate and accept the Minister’s generosity of spirit in making those disclosures, but it would be wrong of us as the Opposition not to ensure that adequate and appropriate protection is available. New clause 2 would provide such protection by making three provisions. First, it would ensure that the Secretary of State makes available to Parliament details of funding arrangements. Secondly, the Mayor of London, whoever that is at the time, will commit Londoners to extra expenditure and potential liability, and it is only right that he should provide them with a statement of the financial consequences. I am not sure that I share the Minister’s confidence that every person elected Mayor would be keen to provide such a statement. Thirdly, the new clause states that the Secretary of State shall, after consultation, provide an annual statement of costs and liability.

The justification for proposed subsection (1) is clear. The provision would allow us to scrutinise the elements of the package, to undertake proper risk analysis, and form a view on the financial probity of the providers, before considering the provisions behind the finance package and the financial model so that we could take taking a view on the associated risk. The Conservatives have said throughout the parliamentary process—I am sure that the Liberal Democrats have done so, too—that we support the principle of Crossrail, but that we would need to see the funding. The Minister has acted in a spirit of generosity and transparency, and it is appropriate that we enshrine that transparency in the Bill.

Proposed subsection (2) is simple. All councils have to provide an annual statement on how they deliver services and how those services are paid for. The subsection would not place any greater requirement on the Mayor of London. He is happy to commit Londoners to potential liability as a co-sponsor, so he should be happy to tell Londoners exactly what the financial consequences of his actions will be. I see no problem with that, and I am sure that Londoners would appreciate it.

Proposed subsection (3) would provide for an annual statement or update. As we embark on the building, maintenance and operation of Crossrail, we do need more than a snapshot in the House; we need dynamics. If there were a problem of overspend or—less likely, I suspect—underspend, or if was a delay, the new clause makes provision for Parliament to be notified of such things, which would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I have listened carefully to the Minister. We are grateful that he has deposited information with us, and we thank him sincerely for doing so. At the same time, I hope that he recognises that it is the Opposition’s duty to make sure that his spirit of generosity is not transitory and that it is enshrined in one of the most important parts of the Bill so that it will be available for future scrutiny. I shall therefore seek to divide the Committee on new clause 2.

New clause 3 is a simple but important housekeeping measure. This is an exceptional project, and it requires exceptional powers and exceptional discretion. We have recognised that spirit throughout. The Secretary of State has been granted powers of compulsory acquisition both within and without the scope of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965; she has been granted rights of easement and licences; and she has been granted powers of purchase along the deemed route within and without the limits of deviation. We all accept that that is necessary and desirable.

After Crossrail is built, however, there will undoubtedly be land excess to the needs of the Crossrail operation. I am sure that any member of this Committee, particularly those who served on the Select Committee, can think of petitions they have heard where the land that is going to be used for the building of Crossrail will not be necessary for its operation. The Government and the operators of Crossrail will not necessarily want to be a landlord so that excess land should be disposed of. The proceeds from the disposal of the surplus lands should be directed to reducing the overall costs and funding the compensation payments. This is a sensible housekeeping measure and I commend it to the Committee.