Crossrail Bill

I cannot believe that. I believe that transparency is important. The noble Lord raised questions about Crossrail’s funding and the project's continuing finances. We share the aim of transparency and recognise the importance of keeping the public well informed about Crossrail. In the past few weeks, I have read some doubting copy in the press suggesting that the Government are not committed to Crossrail, and I refute that. We are totally committed to seeing this project through because we see it as an important addition to the network. The Government have demonstrated through our investment plans and more our determination to raise the standards of the railway network and ensure that it can cope with the capacity pressures. We see Crossrail as vital to dealing with some of those issues and securing long-term regeneration and investment in London and elsewhere in the south-east. Its ability to deliver connectivity across the network is an important part of that story. As to transparency, we have already published the heads of terms that were signed by the department and Transport for London last October. They set out the funding arrangements for Crossrail and the key terms of the deal between the co-sponsors. We also fully intend to publish information about the project during the course of construction, provided that that does not compromise commercial confidentiality. I am sure that the noble Lords, Lord Hanningfield and Lord Berkeley, respect the importance of commercial confidentiality. We do not want to do anything that undermines the success of the project in those terms. Indeed, paragraph 3.11.2 of the heads of terms makes clear that CLRL will be required to publish information, "““to ensure a high level of transparency as to the progress and cost of the Crossrail project””." In that light, we would be concerned about proposed paragraph (2)(d) as it is widely drafted and could compromise our ability to protect commercially confidential information when we publish plans, information and details of the project’s development. I ask noble Lords to reflect carefully on that point. We are currently working with CLRL and TfL to turn the heads of terms into a suite of full and binding legal documents. It is our intention that it will include a requirement to publish annually information on: the funding provided to CLRL for the construction of Crossrail; expenditure incurred so far; whether the project remains within budget or whether measures are being taken to bring it back on target; and information on the proceeds of any land and property disposals, provided that does not affect commercial interests. We plan to make those agreements public—again, subject to the appropriate protection of commercial interests. Although I sympathise with the sentiment underlying the noble Lord’s amendment—he explained it in terms and suggested that the debate has already been had once before—it is unnecessary, as it will be covered by the legal agreements governing the project. Furthermore, as drafted, it would compromise and run the risk of undermining the commercial interests involved in the development of the project. The noble Lord asked a few questions and made a few important points. The convergence of the Olympic construction and Crossrail will, with other projects, place a big demand on the construction industry in the UK but, as we know, there is considerable international mobility in the construction industry, particularly for tunnelling projects, and we are confident that we can manage major projects such as this one alongside each other. The noble Lord also made a point about cost and asked whether we had taken account of inflation. The figure of £16 billion includes what we describe as a prudent allowance for inflation during construction and the risk of other cost escalation, and it is fully inclusive of all project costs, such as land acquisition, compulsory purchase and contingency. We are confident that the figure represents a fully inclusive cost for the project, which is why we have approved funding at that level. In October 2007, we produced a White Paper setting out proposals to introduce a power for local authorities to raise supplementary business rates to fund economic development such as infrastructure. It stated that there would be a national limit set at 2p in the pound of rateable value, with exemptions for businesses with a rateable value below £50,000. We have indicated that we expect to bring forward legislation in due course that will enable the mayor and local authorities in London to raise and retain supplements on the local business rate. What I can say to the noble Lord is already public knowledge—that the Bill is included in the draft legislative programme for 2008-09. I do not know whether the noble Lord knows more than I do; I cannot see his party objecting to that or producing a Back-Bench revolt from my party. I should have thought that, with the overwhelming support that we have received for Crossrail from the noble Lord’s party and others, there should be little difficulty in securing that legislation. I remain confident, as I did at the outset of bringing the Bill through the House, that not only will we see those carefully planned parts of the budget fall into line but the element that is to be secured through the supplementary business rate route will be put in place as well. The noble Lord asked what would happen if the legislation was late. As set out in the heads of terms, if for any reason the legislation is late, and provided that the funding from the source is likely to be forthcoming, the DfT will provide additional grant to the GLA to make up any shortfall. There is a high degree of certainty in this project, and that last statement should be read and understood very much in those terms. I understand the amendment, which has been rehearsed before in another place. We do not think that it is necessary because we have covered all the points made by the noble Lord with regard to transparency. As I carefully explained, it is our intention not only to make the heads of terms more accessible but to make the agreements public, subject to the necessary commercial protection needs. We intend to produce information at least annually on the funding provided to CLRL for the construction of Crossrail and to make details available in the same terms on expenditure incurred so far, and to describe where that spending is in relation to budget and meeting our targets. We understand the amendment, but reject it on the basis that it is unnecessary. By the way in which we have planned the project, we have already secured that the information will be published in a format that is as identical as it can be.