BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order) (Hansard, 26 June 1974)

§ Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury)

I have been asked by British Rail to present the Bill to the House once again, as I did on Second Reading before it went to Private Bill Committee. As I went through its details on Second Reading on 8th April I do not intend to go over the ground again, especially as I understand that the Bill is objected to by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) in respect of only one of the powers sought in the Bill; and, of course, hon. Members will have received a detailed brief of the content of the Bill.

At the end of the debate on 8th April the Bill was given an unopposed Second Reading and, as a result of the withdrawal of the six petitions deposited against it, it was considered by an Unopposed Bills Committee on 22nd May. Amendments were made by the Committee at the request of British Rail, including the deletion of works Nos. 1 and 2 which were the proposed railway to Maplin Sands and the addition of some protective provisions agreed by the promoters with the interested parties.

One clause was disallowed by the Committee. That was the provision relating to exemption from the requirement to provide two firemen's switches on luminous signs at automatic half-barrier level crossings. Apart from those amendments the Bill is in substantially the same form as it was on Second Reading and I hope the House will understand why I am not going over those details tonight.

I should explain, however, the part of the Bill to which exception is taken on behalf of the residents of Canvey Island and of the neighbouring mainland. This will be found in Clause 6 and it consists of Work No. 3, which comprises a one-mile extension to connect a spur railway on Canvey Island, which is already authorised by the British Railways Act 1972, with an oil refinery proposed to be constructed by United Refineries Ltd. adjacent to another refinery already under construction by the Occidental Oil Company Ltd. This line is intended to be used to transport some of the refined products from the refineries to inland depots or other distribution centres.

1632 British Rail contends that, with one of the refineries already under construction and the other at detailed planning stage following the grant of planning permission, it should be given power to construct this further mile of railway which will lead to a loading terminal next to the refinery but away from the nearest centre of population at South Benfleet, almost two miles away. This would have the effect of taking potential heavy traffic off the roads.

The House will have great sympathy with the local residents, with the local authority which has now inherited the planning powers of the county council and with the hon. Member for Essex, South-East, who are all understandably concerned about the effect on the area of a further introduction of potentially dangerous industrial and commercial activities, especially when the Langley fire and the Flixborough disaster are fresh in mind. However, it is important for us as Members of the House to appreciate that this is a miscellaneous powers Bill which contains provisions affecting various parts of the country and provides much-needed new powers or the extension of existing powers to enable British Rail to carry out its functions and undertake the difficult tasks which we in Parliament have laid upon it.

The Bill has already been debated on Second Reading. It has been carefully considered by an Unopposed Bills Committee, by whom it was amended. If it is allowed to proceed it will be scrutinised in the House of Lords where the local authorities, if they wish, or any other person or body will be able to be heard and to call evidence in support of their case as a result of lodging a petition in the usual way. I accept that in the dispute between the environmentalists and local protectionists on the one hand and the oil companies and the Secretary of State on the other hand the local interests can have their case effectively ventilated at every opportunity—and this is one of those opportunities.

Understandably, local interests are strongly opposed to still further industrial development being allowed in an area which is already thought to be over-laden with high-risk operations and they are aggrieved by the insensitivity of successive Ministers to their plight, which 1633 they see as having been not simply ignored but deliberately made worse by British Rail. British Rail, however, is not responsible for planning decisions. It has its statutory duties consequent upon those decisions and it should not be prevented from discharging those duties because there is opposition to planning decisions which have already been taken.

I understand that the Government support the Bill, which because of the numerous important powers it contains should in my view be allowed to proceed to the statute book after it has received further scrutiny by a Select Committee in the House of Lords. I hope that the House will allow the Bill to pass this stage and proceed as normal to Third Reading at a later day.