§ Order for Second Reading read.
8.10 pm§ Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson (New Forest)I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill, in common with its predecessors, stems from the duties placed upon the board by the Transport Act 1962:. As the House will know, I have had the privilege of proposing the Second Reading of a number of these Bills in the past. It may therefore be for the convenience of the House if I spell out the duties placed on the board by the Transport Act 1962:
It is the duty of the Board under the said Act of 1962 inter alia, to provide railway services in Great Britain and, in connection with the provision of railway services, to provide such other services and facilities as appear to the Board to be expedient, and to have due regard, as respects all those railway and other services and facilities, to efficiency, economy and safety of operation.The Bill is yet another milestone in establishing a safe, economical and viable railway system. Much of the Bill is concerned with the electrification of the east coast main line and related works. There are other matters which I shall refer to in my remarks.
It may again be for the convenience of the House if I define what is meant by the east coast main line. That means the railway between King's Cross station in London and Edinburgh with a branch line to Leeds. Part I of the Bill defines the terms and objectives and incorporates certain general Acts in common with Acts of this type. Part II, clause 5, deals with the power to make works and to maintain them. Part III, clauses 24 to 37, gives power to carry out bridge works and these are the bridges concerned in the electrification of the east coast main line. Part IV deals with the purchase of land. Part V covers the incorporation of works provisions. Part VI deals with certain protective provisions which again are common to these Bills which relate to the Crown, police, electricity, gas and water authorities. Part VII deals with the miscellaneous provisions and there are two matters of some interest in this part of the Bill. Part VIII deals with general provisions which are standard planning, appeals, arbitration and the cost of the legislation. The schedules are self-explanatory.
The proposed changes in the Bill are necessary because of the changes in use patterns generally, the new arrangements with local authorities which are being established by the board and a general policy of good housekeeping. Hon. Members will see that the Bill is in fact a substantial document. It deals with a number of matters other than those to which I have already referred, namely the electrification of the east coast main line.
While I do not intend to recount all these changes unless hon. Members wish to refer to specific alterations, there are one or two changes which I shall highlight as they evidence the points I am trying to make. Clause V, concerns work No. 2, the new road and footpath at Bull's Lock, Newbury. This level crossing, which also carries a public footpath, is regarded by the British Railways Board as one of the most hazardous on the western region. It is situated on a curve; the maximum line speed at that point is 100 mph, and there is only limited visibility in each direction. The potential dangers are enhanced by the fact that the road approaches to the crossing are steeply graded, thus restricting visibility for road users. Additionally, 259 there is a history of indiscipline in the operation of vehicular gates by authorised users, and a number of near misses have been reported. Such use as has been made of the telephone installed at the crossing to enable drivers of road vehicles and those herding cattle to check with the signalman that the way is clear before crossing has been erratic to say the least. For a number of years, the board has wished to close the crossing and if the powers proposed in the Bill are granted by Parliament, the board will do so.
That is a good example of trying to meet the criterion which I established at the beginning of my remarks to make the service safer and more efficient. The board will no doubt have many other opportunities in the future to carry out this type of improvement and clause V is a good example of what we are trying to achieve in the Bill.
Similarly, in part II there is in clause 17 an example of what I mentioned earlier, namely, the relationship between the British Railways Board and the local authorities. As an example, I cite the case of Ermine street level crossing at Hibaldstow, Humberside. Under the Humberside county council's road scheme for the Brigg and Redbourne bypass, a length of Ermine street on either side of the Ermine street level crossing will be stopped up by the county council while it constructs a bridge to carry the new road over the railway a few yards west of the crossing. That will mean the isolation of the crossing from the rest of the road system and therefore, as a matter of good housekeeping, the board seeks power formally to stop up Ermine street between the crossing gates upon the completion and opening for public use of the new road. I cite those two examples, but there are others in the Bill and if hon. Members wish to refer to them I shall do my best to deal with them if I have permission to speak again.
Part VIII of the Bill, under miscellaneous provisions, deals with an important change in the pension schemes of the British Railways Board. In clause 45, it is proposed that the board shall constitute a new pensions scheme entitled "British Rail Pension Scheme". That scheme will acquire the assets and liabilities of two other existing schemes, namely, the British Railways (Wages Graded) Pension Fund and the new section of the British Railways Superannuation Fund. Bringing these two funds together under one heading and bringing the assets and liabilities together in the way I have described will make the operation of the new scheme more efficient. The new scheme will obviously be much larger and hopefully will be more secure against the fluctuation in the values of assets.
I want to make it clear that, in any changes of the kind that I have described, no benefits will be prejudiced in any way and that the people who will benefit from the scheme will be completely protected. It might again be worth noting that statutory authority is being sought on this occasion because of the enormous size of the assets involved. The total assets of the existing schemes total some £3,000 million. That is a very large operation indeed. I wish to make it clear that the new scheme should be an improvement and in no way a diminution of the services provided by the board's pensions schemes in the past.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to clause 47 which comes under the miscellaneous provisions. It has caused some anxiety, because it relates to Hungerford bridge, which is not far from here. The clause relates to that part of Hungerford bridge alongside Charing Cross station which extends from ground level in Villiers street 260 to the point where it meets the flight of steps leading to the Victoria embankment, adjacent to the Embankment station. The change is being made because of the habits of vagrants who sleep and occupy the bridge to the discomfort of pedestrians. The bridge has to be closed, which means that pedestrians cannot use it.
The entire length of Hungerford bridge is supposed to be a public thoroughfare. Section 8 of the Metropolis Toll Bridges Act 1877 requires the board to maintain and keep the bridge in substantial repair, suitable and open to the public at all times, for every description of foot traffic. Section 30 of the Act permits the board to stop up and discontinue any part or parts of the footbridge upon substitution of an alternative route for pedestrians which is adequate and proper.
Notwithstanding those statutory duties, for a number of years the board has found it necessary completely to close the length of the footbridge to which clause 47 relates because the covered portion adjacent to the steps leading down to Villiers street was being misused and being occupied at night by vagrants. That resulted in numerous complaints from rail travellers and other members of the public.
In an attempt to combat that problem, the board for a number of years has been nightly locking the gates giving access to the footbridge from Villiers street and at the top of the steps leading down to the Embankment. The board's staff, who were responsible for locking, were being threatened and subjected to much verbal abuse when they tried to evict the vagrants from the covered portion. That prompted the board to close the entire length of the footbridge.
Following discussions with the GLC and Westminster city council, the board has agreed to improve the covered portions of the footbridge and, upon completion of the improvements, to reopen the footbridge. In return, and subject to clause 47 passing into law, the GLC and Westminster city council will relieve the board of its obligations under sections 8 and 30 of the 1877 Act to which I have just referred. The city council has agreed to accept the dedication of that length of the footbridge which will then become a walkway under section 35 of the Highways Act 1980.
I have taken a little time to explain that point, because the bridge is a famous London landmark and one does not want to do anything to limit access to it. I hope that have explained that there are real problems in operating that part of the footbridge as we do at present. I hope that the new arrangements will be more satisfactory.
This is not a controversial Bill. There are, and will properly be in its later stages, opportunities for detailed consideration. It is yet another milestone along the route to making the British Rail system more efficient, safer and more acceptable to the travelling public.
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)It was not originally my intention to object to the Bill at this stage, but in view of what was said by the Chairman of Ways and Means at the end of the proceedings on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill last week, I thought that it would be useful to speak on this Bill now rather than when it came to the consideration of possible amendments.
I welcome the electrification of the east coast main line and all British Rail's proposals to improve and modernise it. My only complaint about British Railways Bills is that 261 in the past the board has obtained powers through the House but has not had the finance to carry out its proposals, and some of them have never come about.
I am worried about the way in which the Bill deals with footpaths. I am anxious about clauses 9, 11, 14 and 23, and the schedule, and clauses 28, 33 and 36. The point was made last week—I think it is one that the Chairman of Ways and Means accepts—that in some cases private Bills promoted through the House do not serve the best interests of local communities. It is not easy for local people who might use the footpaths to know of the Bill's existence. Most people who take their dogs out for a stroll, go along the footpaths in the summer, come back from their newspaper round, or whatever, do not look carefully at the British Railways (No. 2) Bill or any other of its private Bills.
It would be far more satisfactory if British Rail dealt with the closure or diversion of footpaths as anyone else would have to do, not by promoting a private Bill but by serving notice on the local authority and asking for a diversion or closure. Notices would then be put up on the footpath or bridge and local people would have the right to object. If there were objections, the objectors would have the right to a local inquiry. The inquiry inspector would make a recommendation in favour of or against the closure or of a diversion. Local people would enjoy a simple procedure.
Unfortunately, that has not happened in this case. We have a complicated procedure which is, on the whole, remote from local people—a private Bill. I suspect that one or two of the proposed closures will come as a surprise to many local people, because they will have been completely unaware of the Bill's existence.
I know that British Rail will counter that argument and say that, even if it went through the local procedure, as an Act created the footpath, probably by diverting an earlier footpath, it would also have to seek parliamentary approval.
We should be considering our procedures, but until we amend them I argue strongly that British Rail should go through the local consultation procedure of putting up notices and letting local people know whether the proposals would affect them adversely. If there were no objections, no one would need to take any action. If there were objections, their validity could be tested locally.
At the moment the procedure is unsatisfactory. Local people know nothing about the Bill. It is fortunate that with such a Bill the Ramblers Association checks carefully. If there is a series of footpath closures, it may decide to petition against the Bill. The Ramblers Association then starts to write to the local associations to find out whether anyone is interested in the matter. We do not know whether anyone locally is genuinely interested because once the Ramblers Association writes to the local association it thinks that it had better protect the footpath. We have the unsatisfactory position where action is motivated from the centre rather than locally. We have no clear idea whether there is strong feeling locally or whether the Ramblers Association and others are merely pursuing a matter of principle.
I plead with British Rail to deal with footpath matters for the time being by applying for local closure or diversion notices. Having obtained them, British Rail should incorporate them in the Bill, and it can then certify 262 that the local inspector found in its favour after a local inquiry. If it cannot convince local people and the local inspector, the closure should be left out of the Bill.
I hope that that sort of consideration can be given. When the Bill goes into Committee and the Ramblers Association's petition is considered, British Rail will be able to say that, between Second Reading and the petition being heard, it has applied for local diversion and closure notices and the result is that in so many cases it has had a certain number of objections and in other cases it has not.
There may be some difficulties of time with the Bill. I wish to make it clear to the House that if British Rail does not follow that procedure, then I shall seek, on consideration, to put down amendments to those footpath closures. It is unsatisfactory that footpaths can be closed by means of a Bill without local people knowing about it.
I hope that when the House sets up a Committee to look into the private business procedure, it will consider the way that footpaths may or may not be closed by means of private Bills and will amend the Standing Orders to make it clear that proposals for footpath closures can only be put forward once there has been a local inquiry and the inspector has agreed that it is in the best interests of everyone for the footpaths to be closed.
§ Mr. Henry Bellingham (Norfolk, North-West)I am glad that I have been called on the Bill. I support the electrification of the east coast main line. I support the other clauses in the Bill and, if necessary, I shall vote for them tonight.
I wish to discuss other issues which involve the electrification of railway lines. The first matter concerns Stansted airport. British Rail is anxious to build a new line from Stansted station through to the airport. The Government's decision on the future of Stansted will be of crucial importance. My constituency would welcome that project going ahead. I hope that the line will be built from Stansted station through to Stansted airport and that it will have north and south facing connections. Thus, people will be able to travel from King's Lynn through to Cambridge and then to change and go from there to Stansted and on to the airport. It will obviously be a great benefit to my constituency.
I am also concerned about the railway line from London through to King's Lynn via Cambridge and Ely. I am slightly troubled because there are no measures in the Bill to electrify the stretch of line from Cambridge on to King's Lynn. We feel slightly left out because the London to Norwich line is almost completely electrified and the London to Cambridge stretch is being proceeded with at a pace and will probably be completed by May 1987. That, therefore, leaves the stretch of line from Cambridge through to King's Lynn, the chief town of west Norfolk and one of the most important towns of East Anglia. I cannot overstress the importance of the rail link. We have a reasonable service and a good timetable, but, alas, the rolling stock is fairly old and many improvements could be made. I pay tribute to the efforts and loyalty of the local British Rail staff who work tirelessly to provide the best possible service to Norfolk and especially west Norfolk.
We do have the odd complication, and unfortunately one such complication took place only 10 days ago. One of my constituents was travelling by train from King's Lynn to London. The constituent was subjected, alas, to eight stops and the train arrived 40 minutes late. My 263 constituent's breakfast also found itself on the wrong side of a locked door and the toilets in her compartment were filthy. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of this incident and he has probably had a word with BR about it. I am glad to say it is the exception to the rule. At the time I made some comments about the incident to the local paper and I may have gone over the top. I did say it was a disgraceful incident and that, in future, I would have to think twice about encouraging the Minister, should he come to my constituency, to travel there by train. I received some flak in the local press for saying that—it is easy to say things on the spur of the moment. Of course I totally back that railway line and when the Minister does come to my constituency I hope that he travels by rail rather than car.
We need to have this stretch of line electrified. The rail link is crucial to King's Lynn. King's Lynn does not receive any regional aid. We are trying hard to get unemployment down and, over the past year or so, the unemployment level has been static. I believe we are winning the fight to create new jobs and the local economy, especially the small firms sector, is thriving. We are trying, all the time, to attract new firms into west Norfolk and into King's Lynn. We are also trying to improve the trunk roads. The borough council of King's Lynn and west Norfolk recently announced a major campaign to improve the A47 trunk road west from King's Lynn through to Peterborough into the midlands. The council is also backing me in my campaign to get the railway line electrified. We are trying hard to encourage existing firms to expand in King's Lynn, and we are trying to attract firms from outside. We are doing what we can to build up the economic base with a view to reducing unemployment. We are succeeding, and we shall continue to succeed.
We recently had the excellent news that a major national organisation, the Construction Industry Training Board, announced that it would relocate its London headquarters in west Norfolk. I have campaigned for that for some time behind the scenes with the CITB management. The board has its Civil Engineering College and its training centre at Bircham Newton. It therefore made sense for it to move its headquarters up to west Norfolk. I pushed that decision as hard as possible and the board announced, only last week, that it will look for a substantial number of new local employees to join the headquarters at Bircham Newton.
That is a major vote of confidence in west Norfolk and it bodes well for the future. I do not believe that that organisation or other organisations or companies would have come to west Norfolk, or indeed others will come, if they did not have confidence in the rail service. If incidents such as that which affected my constituent recently are repeated too often such companies may live to regret their decisions. I believe electrification will go ahead and it is important that it should proceed.
The docks at King's Lynn are also expanding and there is a good deal of scope for an increase in freight and industrial traffic. It is a chicken and egg situation. If one has a better service then there will be more domestic and commercial usage of that service. If there is not this level and quality of service then less custom will be attracted.
I believe that the electrification from Cambridge through to King's Lynn should proceed. The electrification of the Cambridge stretch should be completed by May 1987. If British Rail do not electrify the line from 264 Cambridge to King's Lynn, there will be problems. A major rail service from London to King's Lynn will have an electrified service as far as Cambridge but a second rate service from there to King's Lynn. A different set of rolling stock will have to be maintained to provide the service for the second leg of the journey. That would make the line inefficient and in the long run more costly. The cost of maintaining diesel locomotives is high. They guzzle fuel and they require a great deal of care and attention to stop them from breaking down. If traffic fell off on that part of the line, it would be vulnerable in the future. I would fight tirelessly to keep it, and I know that the people of west Norfolk, the county council, the borough council, and everybody else involved would fight to keep that line.
If the line is not electrified, it could be vulnerable to a cost-cutting Government at some stage in the future—perhaps not in five or 10 years, but beyond that into the next century. It may be chopped by a future Beeching. If we spend money on electrifying the line, it will be saved for the foreseeable future. What is more, the electrification could go ahead on commercial grounds. British Rail has launched an appraisal of electrification from Cambridge to King's Lynn, the results of which will come out later in this year, and until we get that appraisal we shall not know the estimates and exact figures as to future traffic flows.
However, the terrain from Cambridge to west Norfolk is very flat. There are few bridges and it would be relatively cheap to electrify this stretch of the line. It would represent first-class value for money. If we do not electrify, we shall be putting in jeopardy the economic and commercial future of west Norfolk and the expansion of many firms there. Of all the issues facing my constituency at the moment, without doubt the most important are unemployment, economic growth and the development of the small firms and agricultural sectors, but all these things are dependent upon good communications, good roads and good railways.
Infrastructure is crucial to west Norfolk and there are times when I, as a Conservative Member, say that the Government should spend more money on certain parts of the infrastructure. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees with me, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt). There are times when spending money on infrastructure for its own sake is not cost effective and will not create jobs, and in the long run will do the country economic damage. However, certain selective schemes can benefit a particular area and help firms there to get their goods to market, be more competitive and give them a more competitive edge against European rivals, so in this case the Government should go ahead.
For such a scheme, we are not talking about much money, probably under £10 million, but it will guarantee jobs, help to create new jobs, encourage the small firms sector and boost the image of an important part of the country. That is money well spent. I shall be pushing my hon. Friend the Minister, and as soon as the appraisal comes out I shall be meeting him and the chairman of British Rail to do all that I can to stress the case for this project. It is crucial to the economic well-being and industry of King's Lynn and to the future of many people in my constituency.
§ Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson (Newbury)I apologise for not being present at the beginning of this debate and I hope that what I say has not already been covered by any hon. Member. I share the view of all those who have spoken about the need and the wish to see British Rail successful, efficient and commercially as viable as we can make it. I shall concentrate my remarks on a small aspect. However, I shall set them in a wider context because they give me cause for some concern about the way in which our railways are being run.
Over the past decade, my constituency has seen considerable growth in its population, much of which uses the west country main line from Exeter, through Newbury to London, to a great extent for commuting. People want a fast, efficient and reliable service and I am sorry to say that they have not always had that, certainly not in the past 12 months. They want as much warning as they can be given by British Rail about possible hold-ups and they want to be sure that they are aware of any likely problems that may cause them to take an earlier train or to change their timetable to London or for getting home. Therefore, I stress the need for a safe, fast, efficient and reliable railway, and in particular one that is safe for passengers and for those who have to cross the line.
When I received a letter dated 20 January from Mr. Simon Osborne, the principal assistant solicitor at British Rail, to remind me that the Bill was due for Second Reading soon, I read his letter with considerable interest. He kindly advised me about the section of the Bill that relates to the level crossing, known as Bull's Lock crossing, on the west of England main line near Newbury. He says:
This crossing is regarded by the Board's operators as one of the most hazardous on the Western Region, being situated on curved track giving only limited visibility at a point where the maximum line speed is 100 mph. The potential dangers are enhanced by the fact that the road approaches to the crossing are steeply graded, thus restricting visibility for road users.I have no doubt that he is correct in his comments, but that persuades me to ask the question, "If this danger has existed for so many years, why has the British Railways Board only now decided that it should do something about it?" I hope that I shall have an answer to that question tonight.The letter continued:
Added to this, there is a history of indiscipline in the operation of vehicular gates and a number of 'near misses' have been reported. Such use as is made of the telephone installed at the crossing, to enable drivers of road vehicles and those herding cattle to check with the signalman that the way is clear before crossing has been erratic, to say the least. Elimination of the crossing is therefore in everyone's best interests.That statement worries me because I wonder how many other such crossings exist on British Rail main line routes and can be described as havinga history of indiscipline … and a number of 'near misses' have been reported.We deserve an answer from British Rail to that question, as the safety of those using crossings is at risk, as is, perhaps more so, the safety of passengers travelling in the trains using the crossings, and of possibly finding the crossing blocked off by somebody crossing in a vehicle, or even by animals being herded across the line. Why has British Rail only now decided that this is a hazard, and so hazardous that it deserves to find its way into the annual Bill? How many more crossings of this kind can be described as having 266
a history of indiscipline … and 'near misses' have been reported.What is involved in the work outlined in the Bill and its schedule? What does the work entail? In particular, would it affect trains crossing the culvert, because the idea is to re-route the private footpath and crossing through a culvert in the railway line? As comments on restructuring appear in the Bill, I wonder whether the work will affect trains using the line—for example, will they be able to pass over that part of the line only at a reduced speed thus clearly changing the projected arrival time at Newbury, Reading or Paddington? Will the culvert have to be strengthened, and when is work due to start? Last but by no means least, how much does the British Railways Board expect the work to cost and how soon does it think it will be finished once it is set in hand?
I believe that, although the Bill in its entirety seems to be worthy of the House's support, the points to which I have drawn the House's attention raise wider issues and make me ask whether British Rail is examining its lines as carefully as it should. The west country line is not new, it has been in existence for many decades, and to be told now that the crossing constitutes a serious hazard on a 100 mph stretch and to be told only in 1986 that British Rail thinks that something should be done about it leaves me with a horrid feeling that there may be other dangers lurking on other main lines which British Rail would do well to look at as a result of tonight's proceedings and set in hand the work required to make them safe if such work is needed.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley)It may be helpful if I give a brief indication of the Government's view of the Bill. The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the powers sought by the British Railways Board. A few minor points will need to be raised by the Department of Transport, but I have no doubt that they will be cleared up satisfactorily.
There are petitioners against the Bill and they will have the opportunity to present their objections to the Select Committee. The Committee will be in a much better position than we are tonight to examine in detail the issues involved and it will have the added advantage of having expert evidence. I recommend to the House that the Bill be given a Second Reading and be allowed to proceed to Committee in the usual way for that detailed consideration.
§ Mr. Patrick McNair-WilsonI shall deal first with the points raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) regarding footpaths and other matters. He will know that local publicity is given in those situations. The reason why some of the conditions to which he referred are not always answered is because the Highways Act 1980 does not always apply to the situations we are talking about this evening. However, I can tell him that the local newspaper carried advertisements about the closures in December 1985 and notices were posted at either end of the footpath in November 1985. Therefore, the board is anxious to ensure that local people are aware of what is happening.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, there are petitions, which will be considered in detail later. That is a valid 267 point, because ramblers and others use the footpaths and they have every justifiable reason to be aggrieved if they are suddenly closed and no proper warning is given. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments will have been noted by the board, and perhaps we can look at them again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) will be glad to know, as he probably does already, that the Airports Bill dealing with Stansted will come before the House soon. The point that he raised about the railway link with the proposed airport extension can be dealt with in that debate. However, I entirely agree with what he said about improving services in east Anglia and his own constituency. I assure him that the board has those matters under review and is anxious to press ahead with them. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the Bill. I hope that we shall be able to ensure that all of his constituents enjoy better journeys than the ones to which he referred and the one which some of us read about in the newspapers not long ago.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) raised an important issue. It is alarming that dangerous stretches of the railway still exist without action being taken. The board has been negotiating with land owners in that area for a considerable time. Even tonight, I am not able to give my hon. Friend a firm date as to when the work will start because negotiations are still continuing. All the clause will do is give the board the necessary authorisation.
On the matter of the irresponsible behaviour of certain individuals, I can assure my hon. Friend that the railway police and others do what they can to ensure that breaches of regulations are dealt with, but, of course, they are somewhat overstretched. In a sense, the complaint which my hon. Friend makes points the need for these Bills. Many people have often thought that this sort of Bill should be handled by a Government Department, but, because the railways have been built over private land, special provisions have been required. The case of Bull's Lock crossing is a good example. Private landowners are concerned and it is partially for that reason that no action has been taken before. I made it clear in my opening remarks that the board is always anxious to find examples of danger and to deal with them as swiftly as possible. I can assure him that his remarks will be noted by the board and it will continue to do all it can to improve safety and efficiency.
I have tried to deal with the points raised by hon. Members. I commend the Bill to the House, because I believe that it provides yet another helpful step in the development of the railway system.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.