§ Order for Second Reading read
8.15 pm§ Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson (New Forest)I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The annual British Railways Bill is connected with the desire of the British Railways Board to bring the railway system into line with the requirements of modern operation. This general works powers Bill is one of a substantial number introduced in the House since 1963. It aims to improve the safety and efficiency of the railway system, but such Bills have always been seen in the past as an opportunity for hon. Members to raise other matters relating to the railway system. Although I am sponsoring the Bill on behalf of the board, hon. Members should recognise that I am not competent to answer any points outside its scope.
It is, of course, right that all hon. Members should be concerned about safety, as indeed is everyone in the country. Let me make it clear that the board never puts safety after passenger convenience: it is always a top priority. Everyone who works at British Rail receives basic training, and every railwayman receives at least two years' training before taking out trains, so that he has a knowledge of both train operation and the routes that the train is likely to cover.
Automatic warning systems are already provided for drivers, and automatic train protection is the next step. Such technology, however, has yet to be applied to a complex rail network. It is in existence for simple rapid transit systems, and it is hoped that a pilot scheme may be in place next year.
Part I of the Bill deals with the normal preliminary provisions that incorporate the usual enactments by reference relating to such matters as compulsory purchase. Part II deals with the works proposed, part III with the lands, part IV with the normal standard protective provisions and part V with the miscellaneous and general provisions.
Let me begin with the major works proposed. Works No. 1 is a new railway in Birmingham to connect Snow hill station with the station at Smethwick West. The proposed new railway is sponsored by the Passenger Transport Executive which will pay the cost of the reinstatement of British Rail tracks on disused track-bed out of Snow hill until the line joins up with the board's existing freight railway for the final part of the link. For part of its length, the proposed link will share presently disused four-track formation with a light rapid transit railway proposed to be constructed by the PTE. That plan is very much welcomed by local residents and will benefit them and others.
Works No. 3 consists of a new railway—partly reinstatement of disused track, and partly totally new railway—intended to form a link between Nottingham and Mansfield to permit services on the Nottingham-Mansfield-Worksop corridor. The proposal is backed by local authorities in the area which will provide the funds to construct the railway which is expected to relieve traffic congestion. There is also some likelihood of European funding being obtained.
Works Nos. 9, 10 and 11 consist of work associated with platform extension to enable longer trains to operate on certain sections of Network SouthEast. Hon. Members who are concerned about overcrowding on trains must 361 welcome that proposal, which will provide some easement of the inevitable overcrowding in the rush hour. Works No. 9 deals with the reconstruction of the tunnel at Woolwich Dockyard station. Works Nos. 10A and 10B involve bridge and viaduct widening at Lewisham station. Works No. 11 involves bridge widening at Dartford station.
Greenwich borough council is aware of the proposed works No. 9 and has expressed no opposition. Lewisham borough council has expressed some concern about some aspects of works Nos. 10A and 10B, but discussions are continuing with the board and it is hoped that a mutually acceptable solution will emerge. The initial reaction to the proposed works No. 11 from Kent county council and Dartford borough council is not unfavourable and further discussions are continuing.
I shall briefly identify the other works in the Bill for the convenience of hon. Members. Works No. 2 at Tickhill has received no objection from Doncaster metropolitan borough council or from the Tickhill town council which is well aware of the planned works.
Works No. 4 relates to the extension of the high speed train depot at St. Philip's marsh. Bristol city council is aware of the board's proposals, and discussions are taking place.
Works No. 5 relates to the construction of a new cord line to improve facilities for the coal trains supplying the Fiddlers Ferry power station to which there is no objection, as far as the board is aware.
Works No. 7 is a new siding to run to the British Alcan works at Bassaleg, and the Gwent and Newport district council is in favour of the scheme.
Works No. 8 relates to the deviation of Margam to Tondu branch railway at Cefn Cribwr to achieve the release of a significant amount of coal which can be exploited by British Coal.
Clauses 6, 7 and 8 relate to works No. 1, clause 9 involves the relinquishment of powers under the British Railways (No. 2) Act 1981 and the British Railways (No. 2) Act 1984. Clauses 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 relate to works Nos. 3 to 9.
We now come to the provisions of the Bill which have caused some concern. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has expressed concern and has put his name to the blocking motion. The provisions deal with the stopping up and closing of footpaths. The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the petition on behalf of the Ramblers Association. Clause 17 deals with the removal of a dangerous walkway over the River Ribble. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that change should be made in the interests of safety.
For the convenience of the House I shall touch on the related clauses. Clause 11 relates to the stopping up of footpaths at Kirkby in Ashfield and deals with the earlier works to which I have referred. Clause 18 provides for the taking down of a dangerous footbridge and clause 19 the stopping and discontinuance of a footpath at Tipton with which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is particularly concerned. The vehicular use of the crossing was prohibited in 1981 and subsequently in 1984 and as a result the crossing has been only for users of the footpath.
§ Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)I apologise for intervening at this stage, but perhaps I should tell the hon. Gentleman as a matter of information and courtesy 362 that clause 11 is of interest not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Demon and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), but to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as it is in your constituency.
§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)Order. The hon. Gentleman should proceed with caution.
Mr. McNair-WisonOf course I shall proceed with caution, and I hope that I will carry you with me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to make it absolutely clear that the board has no desire gratuitously to curtail movement across any of its tracks or any of its land. In all the cases that I have mentioned, the proposals stem entirely from a desire to improve safety.
Clause 19 relates to Watery lane level crossing in Sandwell. Vehicular access was prohibited nearly 10 years ago and the board proposed a scheme using miniature warning lights. Quite properly and understandably, the local school and the council were concerned that that would be dangerous because many trains travel through the area. The council was concerned that the crossing should be closed. The board believes that that is probably the only sensible answer, but as school-children and those requiring access to the school are likely to be concerned for at least another year, no action will be taken until 1990, but I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish and others concerned about the footpath will look favourably on the suggestion, which is not a gratuitous interruption of access but in the interests of safety. If hon. Members wish to explore the matter further I shall do my best to answer their points later, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye again, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The remaining clauses in the Bill are fairly standard. Clause 28 sets time limits for the purchase of land and the rights over land which are limited until 31 December 1994. Clause 29 deals with the extension of a time limit from an earlier Bill because of the work required for the reinstatement of the curve linking the midlands line with the great central route at Doncaster. The board intends to apply for an extension until December 1994.
Part IV of the Bill is the standard incorporation of previous protective provisions. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, part V deals with the miscellaneous and general provisions. As the House well knows, there are also schedules attached to the Bill.
In conclusion, I want to point to the modest nature of the proposal. I hope that, it will find favour with the House. I also hope that, at a time when British Rail is very much in the news, perhaps for all the wrong reasons, those of us who are concerned about its operation will give the Bill an opportunity to proceed so that the modernisation, and as a result the safety and efficiency that we hope will flow from it, will be a benefit to all the travelling public.
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)I apologise to the House for causing a debate to take place on the Bill. I had hoped that it would be possible for the promoters to meet the points raised by the Ramblers Association and by myself without a debate. I was disappointed last week that it was not possible for the promoters to give an undertaking, particularly because my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) has been pressing me hard for several months about the importance of the part of the Bill which will provide a rail 363 link from Mansfield to Nottingham. I fully appreciate his point, and I have great admiration for the work that he has done on behalf of his constituents to try to get that line included in the legislation and to get the local authorities, and hopefully the EEC, to come up with the money to make the line a practicality.
I am concerned about the principle as to how footpaths should be diverted or stopped up. Anyone who wants to close a footpath, stop it up or divert it should use the highways legislation or the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 rather than a private Bill. I do not want to rehearse the whole argument. I suspect that on future British Rail Bills we will go into the argument in more detail.
I have always contended, and I believe that the Private Bill Committee has also made it clear, that planning matters should be the subject of public inquiries and, perhaps as a long stop, parliamentary legislation, rather than public inquiries being short-circuited by parliamentary legislation.
It would have been possible for the diversion of the footpath in the Mansfield area to be dealt with by an application to the local authority. The local people would have had an opportunity to object. As I understand it—I do not know the area well—most of the local people do not object. They are losing one piece of path and they will gain an alternative path. Therefore, British Rail could have used the local procedure. If local people had been concerned about the proposal, they could have made their point of view known directly to the inspector appointed to consider the objections to the footpath closure. Instead, the proposal has to be dealt with at second or third hand on the Floor of the House and in Committee upstairs.
No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield knows all the detail on the ground, but it is not easy for another hon. Member to argue about footpaths in a constituency other than his own. It is not easy either for the Ramblers Association, which has to put the petition to the Committee, to get its information from local walkers and put it to the Committee at second hand. It would have been far better for British Rail or the other promoters to make their proposal for the diversion of the footpath through the Wildlife and Countryside Act and the highways legislation rather than by a private Bill.
The next footpath is at Malton where the proposal is to take down the bridge at the level crossing because it is not safe. Again, local procedures could have been used rather than resorting to a private Bill. It is a cumbersome process for local people who want to object. It would be simpler if they could object to the local authority. I believe that there would have been no difficulty for British Rail if it had proceeded in that way.
The third footpath is in the Tipton area at Sandwell. It is more complicated and I am reluctant to tread that path. Again, I suggest that it is not appropriate to deal with the matter through a private Bill. As it involves the closure of a footpath across a railway, it could have been argued about locally rather than at second hand in the House. British Rail insists that it could not use the highways legislation or the Wildlife and Countryside Act because it could not establish that no one wanted to use the footpath.
The argument is more complicated. In that case, people want to use the footpath but it is not safe. British Rail argues that, because it wants to close the footpath in the 364 interests of safety, it could not use the highways legislation or the Wildlife and Countryside Act. It could use those provisions only if it believed that people did not want to use the footpath.
I do not know enough about the local position. Perhaps British Rail is using the argument of safety to avoid the cost of constructing a proper crossing which would enable people to get over the railway safely. In one or two places British Rail has erected footbridges. Although the footbridges are a safe way for people to cross, they have caused considerable upset to people who have suddenly found a substantial structure by the side of their gardens. I do not know enough about the Tipton case to know whether a new footbridge would be practical.
Again, it is not the best use of parliamentary procedure for a private Bill to be pushed through the House which will close a crossing over the railway on the ground of safety, with the odd little addition that British Rail will not close the footpath straight away but will leave it open as long as a school wants to use it. In future, when the children stop using the footpath, other local people will be denied the opportunity to do so. Again I argue strongly that such a proposal should not be in a private Bill but be dealt with by other means.
The Ramblers Association will put its petition to the Committee. I hope that British Rail may be able to meet the association's points. Perhaps British Rail need not make changes to the Bill in relation to Mansfield and Malton. If it was to give a general undertaking to the Ramblers Association that in future it will deal with closures through local procedures rather than a private Bill, that would be satisfactory. In the case of Tipton there should be more investigation of the legislation in general to see whether it is correct, as British Rail contends, that it could not close the footpath by any procedure other than a private Bill.
I do not intend to divide the House, particularly in view of all the efforts that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield has made to try to get the railway line into his constituency. I hope that British Rail can clear up the matter and that the Bill may have a speedy passage. Perhaps in the not too distant future my hon. Friend will invite me to travel on that bit of railway to see his constituency.
§ The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo)It might be for the convenience of the House if I were to intervene now and briefly explain the Government's view of the Bill. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) for his very lucid exposition of the Bill. These Bills are necessarily complicated and detailed, so I am sure that the House is grateful to my hon. Friend for his very useful presentation, which enables hon. Members to have an informed debate on these matters. The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the powers sought by the British Railways Board.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made an interesting and thoughtful contribution, in which he alluded to the Ramblers Association's objection in principle to the use of private Bill procedure for the stopping up and diversion of public footpaths, on 365 the ground that the existing powers of highway authorities provide adequate safeguards for public rights and private interests.
However, I understand that the powers under the Highways Act 1980 do not at present allow for stopping up on safety grounds. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Joint Committee that considered Private Bill procedure recommended in October that the Highways Act 1980 should be extended to permit stopping-up orders to be made on grounds of safety in appropriate cases. That would be achieved through the usual Highways Act procedures, including confirmation by the Secretary of State, if necessary following a local public inquiry. But the House has not yet had an opportunity to debate that report. The Government are still preparing their response to it. It is only fair to tell the hon. Gentleman that in the present circumstances the Government are satisfied that there is no objection to British Rail seeking powers in the Bill.
The three petitioners against the Bill will have the opportunity to present their objections to the Committee, which will be in a very much better position than we are tonight to examine in detail the issues involved. It will have the added advantage of hearing expert advice. Therefore, I welcome the assurance by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. I recommend to the House that the Bill should be given its Second Reading and be allowed to proceed in the usual way to Committee, where it can be given the detailed consideration that it merits.
§ Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)Like the Minister, I welcome the Bill. I also extend my usual thanks to the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) for the way in which he moved the Second Reading of the Bill. I, too, spend a long time—it might seem even longer to my audience—dealing with these measures. Perhaps I might be allowed to refer to some of the works in the Bill in a little more detail, not least because many of the provisions of works No. 1 are in my constituency.
I and most of my constituents express great pleasure at the restoration of the old great western route between Snowhill and Handsworth, especially as that route will be eventually a four-track formation once again. While we shall not be able to see halls, kings and castles along the great western main line, I hope that we shall see on two of the tracks fairly new sprinter DMUs, and on the adjacent tracks the even newer super-trams of the midland metro, provided the Department of Transport gets its act together and stops changing the rules, as it did recently in a hopefully futile attempt to stop us having a midland metro. But that expectation gives me great pleasure. I hope that the works will be proceeded with quickly if the Bill receives its Second Reading tonight.
I should like to deal with works No. 3, and the replacement of a passenger rail service between Nottingham and Mansfield, and, I believe, Worksop. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) who has done a great deal of work behind the scenes in the House and with his local authority and the other relevant local authorities to see that the railway services that were short-sighted and misguidedly withdrawn in the 1960s are restored sooner than later.
Mansfield is the largest English town that is not connected to the railway network. I apologise in advance 366 if I have pinched a line from my hon. Friend's speech in saying that, but the fact that a town the size of Mansfield has been off the railway network for 25 years speaks volumes for the short-sighted decisions that were taken in the so-called Beeching era. Thanks to the efforts of the local authorities and hon. Members with constituencies in that part of the world, I am sure that that railway service will be restored.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish gave a careful and concerned speech about clause 19, the Tipton Watery lane level crossing. As I said to the hon. Member for New Forest, who is responsible for the Bill, that crossing is in the constituency adjacent to mine. I notice that the hon. Gentleman was careful to give a full and detailed explanation to Madam Deputy Speaker when she was in the Chair, as the work concerns her constituency.
The circumstances surrounding the clause are complicated. It is a long-running saga. Sandwell borough council wrote to Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd), and to me, and I should have thought also to my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), asking for support so that the crossing would remain open. The circumstances surrounding its proposed closure are that the British Railways Board, in its constant desire to cut costs and ingratiate itself with the Minister of State and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, wants to close the manned signal box at Watery lane, which controls the wicket gate through which members of the public pass across the track.
I have some sympathy with BRB and I do not quibble with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, as I am aware of his expertise on Acts of Parliament. But British Rail has the bulk of the responsibility for preventing motorists and pedestrians from killing themselves. It is strange and slightly illogical, although I understand the reason for it, that we protect the railways in this manner, yet children and adults, whether responsible or sober, are free to cross heavily-used dual carriageways if they are unwise enough, without any protection. Proposals to stop up crossings across lightly used railways—although this is a heavily used main line—are greeted by opposition from individuals, local authorities and groups such as the Ramblers Association.
Various alternatives to closure have been discussed by the council and BRB. I ask the Minister to clarify this point at the end of the debate. As I understand it, the board does not propose to take any action until an annexe has been completed for an adjacent school in 1990. Once that annexe is completed, the need for the crossing will be removed, although I accept my hon. Friend's point that there may well be inconvenience to present users.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish reminds us, the replacement of level crossings by bridges is occasionally as controversial as the original decision to close a level crossing. He does not represent the Woodsmoor area of Stockport, but it is close to his previous constituency, and he will be aware of the controversy that arose when British Rail decided to stop up a level crossing to save the wages of those working in the signal box, and to replace it with a bridge. There was such a row that after about seven years British Rail had to take down the bridge. Thankfully, there is no suggestion in works No. 3 that British Rail will adopt that course, but 367 that case shows that often what British Rail does is wrong in the eyes of many people. I hope that, as my hon. Friend said, the discussions that are taking place, and will take place up to 1990, will lead to agreement. He may be able to persuade the Ramblers Association, whose interests he guards zealously in the House, that the closure should go ahead.
As the Minister said, these matters can be discussed more fully in Committee. On behalf of the official Opposition, I give the Bill a warm welcome. On behalf of my constituency, I hope that British Rail, having been given the parliamentary go-ahead for these works, will proceed quicker rather than slower, and that we shall see once again early in the 1990s a four-track railway line between West Bromwich and Birmingham Snow hill.
§ Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent)This can be described as a useful little Bill. It costs only £26 million and extends British Rail's network. As the preamble to the Bill says, British Rail has a duty
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.I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) for allowing a debate on this issue which goes wider than the details of the Bill, to which I have no objection and in no way wish to obstruct. Throughout the debate on the extension of the British Rail network as it affects my constituents and my part of Britain, I have tried constantly to be constructive and positive. I have no desire to be a Luddite, and never have been. My anxiety is to make sure that as Britain enters the 21st century, for the first time for many years with a rather exciting prospect for railways, we get it right.Getting it right means not only getting a railway of a kind that we can be proud of and that can discharge the kinds of functions that we wish it to discharge, but also a railway that is acceptable to the people who have to endure its passage. I talk about the new high-speed rail link to the Channel tunnel, which has been a source of trauma for a long time in my part of the world.
Part III of the Bill includes powers of compulsory purchase. One can but hope that British Rail has fully consulted all those affected. However, one cannot rely upon that. In my recent experience, British Rail does not understand what consultation is. In my part of the world, British Rail has exhausted itself with meetings. On the one project alone, admittedly 77 times more expensive than the one we are discussing this evening, it held about 160 public meetings. Any fair-minded person must pay tribute to the extraordinary stolid good humour with which British Rail personnel, often exhausted and often shown to be incompetent, managed to retain their good nature.
However, good nature is not enough. The meetings were all confused, crowded and very angry. They were confused because either they were told different things at different times or they were told nothing much at all. They were crowded because they dealt with matters at the very heart of individuals' concerns—home, environment and life style. They were very angry—this is the point—because they were in no sense consultations; they were confrontations. I hope that, in the areas covered by the 368 Bill, British Rail has consulted or will consult. However, in case it still has not learnt what consultation is, I shall tell it again, although I have told it often enough already.
Consultation means sharing. It means saying to someone, "This is my difficulty. It affects you. Will you help me to resolve it?" In my area there are many people with diverse skills, long experience and a strong sense of public duty. There are engineers with experience of multi-million—even billion—pound projects. There are architects, planners, designers, naturalists, noise specialists, geographers, surveyors and lawyers. They are intelligent, mature, rational people. Present them with a problem and they will work to find a solution. Confront them with a solution designed with no reference to them, pat them on the head as if they have nothing valuable to contribute, and they will fight every inch of the way.
My worry in Kent is that, now that British Rail has retired to a new position prepared in isolation, it will argue that it has consulted enough. I tell it now that further public meetings with communities down their chosen route will not be considered consultation. North Downs Rail Concern—the umbrella group with which I have been associated—has reorganised itself. It has set up specialist sub-committees concentrating on matters such as compensation, noise measurement and so on. It will offer its help to the individual communities along the line, each of which will set up its own negotiating team to talk with British Rail.
If British Rail responds to that, it will be consulting. If it does not, it will be confronting. I hope that in Kent, as in other areas covered by this Bill, it will this time consult. If it does not, it will steel the opposition to its railway and all its related works.
In relation to freight, the Bill allows for the construction of new railways. In my part of the country we are in trauma over the plan to construct the longest railway in Britain this century. It will be a passenger line. Part of our trauma stems from the fact that we do not believe that the proposed railway is the only railway that will need to be built. We believe that there is already a need for a purpose-built freight line. We are not alone in that belief. Eurotunnel would like one. Its chairman, Alastair Morton, says:
We believe it is virtually certain that the capacity of Network SouthEast to accept and carry to schedule a rapidly rising flow of international passenger and freight trains will not be maintained at the level shown in British Rail's Study Report.Maunsell's, Kent county council's consultants, pointed out that even the higher estimates so far used by British Rail stem from a database which dealt with the years 1974 to 1984. They recommendedThat serious consideration be given to the design of the new tracks to accommodate freight services in addition to international passenger services.Steer, Davies and Gleave, consultants to Transport 2000, also attack British Rail's forecasts, pointing out that it has carried out no complete revision of freight forecasts since 1985. That group believes that it may be possible to cope by upgrading an existing line, but only if it were upgraded to take continental gauge freight.General Technology Systems makes it clear that, unless British Rail provides a Berne gauge line, it will lose to the competition for the growing Euro-freight market and that its revenue loss will be so great that the funds to sustain 369 even relatively modest improvements to the United Kingdom rail network, such as are proposed in the Bill, will fall.
The Minister tells me that I am wrong because there will not be capacity in the tunnel to take the freight anyway. I believe him to be misinformed. I think that British Rail, frightened of competition, is trying to persuade us that it will make an adequate response to the challenge of a rapidly growing European freight market by slotting in freight trains in gaps left open by the transfer of some passenger trains.
It is absurd to enter the 21st century with a railway system which cannot take Berne gauge wagons. Out of 200,000 European freight wagons, only 2,500 can run on British tracks. That is why I believe that we shall shortly be confronted with a proposal for a new freight line, possibly built by private enterprise. No wonder we in Kent take a burning interest in the hitherto unavailable freight proposals of British Rail. I earnestly hope that British Rail, which is bound to present its freight proposals before the end of the year, will have the tact as well as the sense to present them before it puts its private Bill before the House next November, if it manages—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)Order. The hon. Member has been referring to the subject of the Bill until recently, but I am now getting a little lost. I am sure that he will return to the subject matter of the measure.
§ Mr. RoweI was about to do so with my next sentence, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This interest should not he confined to Kent. The people of Birmingham, Doncaster, Ashfield and Gedling, Bristol, Avon, Warrington and Newport, and all the other places covered by the Bill, should be taking as sharp an interest as we are taking.
§ Mr. SnapeI assure the hon. Gentleman that the people of all those places, and of West Bromwich, take an interest in these matters. If, however, he is seeking allies for a Bill which will come before the House at a future date, he will not get them by blocking the installation of new railway systems in other parts of the country. Speaking for my constituency—even though I am on the Opposition Front Bench—we in West Bromwich welcome a new railway line. If the hon. Gentleman wants allies to prevent the establishment of a different line, we would appreciate it if he did not block the Bill.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. Hon. Members must be careful not to stray from the subject matter of the Bill that we are discussing. I am sure that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) will stay in order.
§ Mr. RoweIt was never my intention to block this Bill and I did not realise that there was any danger of the House running out of time on it. The House will agree that I have not been frivolous or irrelevant in the remarks I have made. I will not develop further my argument about freight at this stage.
I have no doubt that some of those affected by this Bill will be entitled to compensation. I wonder whether they feel less aggrieved than my constituents, some of whom are distraught at the damage already done to their property by British Rail's proposals. We have no idea if or when this massive purveyor of blight will be built. The chairman of BR, presenting BR's chosen route to MPs, said as his eighth presentational point: 370
We have no idea when this project will become economically viable, but we are sure it will one day.As a result, hundreds, if not thousands, of households have seen tens of thousands of pounds arbitrarily sliced off the value of each of their homes. As the average stay in a house is less than five years, the great majority of them will have to sell their homes long before any line is built. Surely they are entitled to some compensation.There must be considerable merit in compensating people if their homes are disturbed by BR proposals to build new lines, to extend existing lines or to alter materially the way in which lines are operated by those properties being bought by the British Rail Property Board, one of the largest property organisations in the country. It is imbued with the clear vision, which is shared by railwaymen throughout the country, that living near a railway line is an asset rather than a disadvantage.
Given that to be the case, it has nothing to lose by backing its judgment and buying properties which, to their present owners, appear to be disadvantaged by the existence of a railway line. That is, in BR's eyes, a serious misconception because it believes that people will benefit from the railway line, even if they do not understand that at this stage.
The British Rail Property Board should buy the large numbers of houses that will be at a serious disadvantage in the property market because of British Rail's proposed changes which, in many cases, may take many years to come to fruition.
I do not wish to be destructive or Luddite or to block the Bill in any way, and I bring my speech to a close.
§ 9.5 pm
§ Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield)I congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) on introducing the Bill so that we might at last have the opportunity to try to obtain proper transport services in my area, if works No. 3 of the Bill is eventually carried out.
Tonight we are faced with an unusual set of circumstances, particularly when we remember what has recently happened in the railways. The hon. Member for New Forest has received an all-party and disciplined response to his call to get the Bill through the House this evening. The Bill's supporters come from both Conservative and Opposition Members and the Government support the Bill's passage through to Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has a great history with, and knowledge of, the railways, in particular the National Union of Railwaymen. If hon. Members were to examine my biographical details, which are in the Library, they would see that I too have a history of working with the rail unions and with the train drivers, union, ASLEF.
I should also like to thank the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) for saying that he does not wish to block the Bill, which will also provide a great service for his constituents. Whether he likes it or not—I am sure that he does—my in-laws are his constituents. They live in Bearsted in Kent and I am sure that they will be pleased that the hon. Gentleman will not be opposing the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East said earlier, the Bill will enable them to board a train in their constituency and travel to the largest town in England yet to acquire a railway service.
371 All the hon. Members who support works No. 3 of the Bill represent constituencies in Nottinghamshire—the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen)—and have been active in pursuing the objectives contained in the Bill. Credit should also be given to British Rail for its excellent work in bringing the Bill to the House, and to the local authorities in the Nottinghamshire area—in particular to Nottinghamshire county council, which has spent much time and money arguing the need for such services into the east midlands areas. The county council has spent much money with Leeds university going through feasibility studies with the communities that will be involved in stages one and two of the programme. I am happy to report that on each occasion, the general public were very much in favour of reviving the service.
If it is reintroduced, the line will travel from Nottingham to Ashfield, Mansfield and Worksop and will pass through many areas that have lost their main source of employment because of the massive pit closure programme in Nottinghamshire in recent years. These communities have lost pits or the pits in them are at risk, and the line would be a shining light in these areas, heralding the restructuring of opportunity throughout Nottinghamshire.
I am pleased to report that the Bill is also supported by the Railway Development Society and all the MEPs of the area. As the Minister knows, only last week Worksop, Mansfield and Nottingham were given the go-ahead by the EEC, thanks to the support of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I should be grateful if the Minister for Public Transport would pass on a message of thanks to his right hon. Friend for his honest approach to the application for grant. These three areas in Nottinghamshire have successfully applied for regional assistance from the EC. We hope that some of the money will be used to rebuild our society, which has been so badly hit.
If the Bill becomes law it will be a shining example of economic development for people in the areas concerned. Not much light has been seen there in recent times. Not only is Mansfield the largest town in England without a railway, it is a small constituency. I could walk its width in about 45 minutes. It is like a city in the middle of the country. My hon. Friends who represent neighbouring constituencies could probably drive for 30 or 40 minutes and still be in them. The constituency is many miles from the centres that do have transport. The M l is five or six miles away and the Al more than seven miles away. The main conurbations such as Worksop are furtherTrom the M I. Worksop is about 17 miles from Mansfield, which is 12 miles from Chesterfield—the nearest railway station—15 miles from Nottingham railway station, and 19 miles from the railway station in Newark. This is a problem area, and the Bill would give us great hope if it became law.
The Bill would also give us the chance to try to attract new businesses and create the employment necessary to reduce unemployment in the areas through which the route would pass. Up to 37,000 people are unemployed now in the small communities that would benefit from such a service.
372 I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has decided not to pursue his objections to the Bill at the end of the debate. I am grateful to him because I know of his concerns. I may add that I have equal admiration for the sturdy work that he does on behalf of the Ramblers Association and others. For many years he has represented their interests in this Chamber.
In conclusion, I beg hon. Members on both sides of the House, in the interests of an awful lot of people—about 500,000—to register their objections by a method different from that which might be adopted in the Chamber tonight. If they think it necessary, let them adopt the procedure that could be used at the Committee stage.
§ Mr. Gerald Bowden (Dulwich)I do not want in any way to oppose this Bill or to impede its progress. As the hon. Members for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) have said, where it affects particular constituencies it is to be welcomed. In that spirit I do welcome it. I have taken note of the words of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who gave the Bill qualified support. I think he accepts that the legislation has to go through as a private Bill, but he expressed the view that this principle may itself be wrong. It seems entirely wrong and archaic that the presentation of propositions, plans and proposals to improve the railway system in this country should depend on the private Bill procedure. It is wrong that debates attended by so few hon. Members should be the means by which people's lives are changed dramatically—in some cases, their homes destroyed and their whole lifestyle and family life put at risk.
The principle of this Bill is broadly welcome, but it is the same principle that will be used in the next few days to get the King's Cross measure through. There has been little consultation. The very procedure this evening demonstrates the inadequacies. The establishment of a second terminal in London, at King's Cross, will predetermine the route through south-east England and the route through London. The proposal presupposes that every passenger going to Mansfield or West Bromwich, East, or Denton and Reddish must go through London. It presupposes that every item of freight coming through the Channel tunnel or coming from the south-east of this country will have to go through London before reaching an onward destination.
This Bill demonstrates the inadequacies of the parliamentary vehicle, even though its purpose is generally acceptable. I will give an example to illustrate my point. Last week—quite out of the blue, without warning—it was proposed that, by way of a private Bill, a whole area of my constituency centred on Warwick gardens should be disrupted. It is suggested that there should be a sub-surface junction with a branch line going to Waterloo by a most circuitous route. People who are not going to Waterloo will go through King's Cross.
The locality has been presented with a great problem, which raises the question whether we ought to change our procedures for dealing with British Rail matters. We must ask whether there should be some kind of public inquiry to meet the needs of local residents and to give them an input as to the implications. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) suggested, there is often far more 373 expertise, experience and professional skill locally than is available to British Rail in making its plans in the first instance. It would be very wrong not to recognise that and to proceed with this means of dealing with British Rail business.
I will not oppose the Bill; indeed, if it goes to a vote I will support it, but, in supporting it, I am doing so for its proposals and not for the means of their implementation—the matter, not the manner. Before we embark on other major legislative proposals introduced by private Bill that will affect not only thousands in the south-east today but millions throughout the rest of the country tomorrow, we should consider whether the procedure is right. I believe that it is wrong.
§ Mr. Patrick McNair-WilsonWith the leave of the House, I should like to deal with some of the points that have been made and thank my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) for their support. As the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) rightly said, this is important legislation and the sooner it passes its remaining stages the better it will be for British Rail and the travelling public. I was interested by the remarks of the hon. Member for Mansfield about works No. 3.
I listened with interest to the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and Dulwich (Mr. Bowden). They dealt with important matters relating to British Rail, and although their remarks were slightly outside the detail of the Bill I am sure that they will have been noted by the Department and the British Railways Board.
I shall deal in more detail with the remarks of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). Interestingly, he drew our attention to the report of the Joint Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure, of which I had the honour of being Chairman. I am looking forward to the debate on private Bill procedure almost as much as the hon. Gentleman. We shall discuss the provision of powers for British Rail that will be an alternative to the current private Bill system. Let us hope that we will not have to wait too long for that debate.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish specifically addressed his remarks to the footpaths that we were discussing earlier this evening and to clauses 18 and 19. As he will know, there are powers in the Highways Act 1980, but, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, safety is not a consideration. The Joint Select Committee report makes some suggestions about that.
It might have been possible to apply to a magistrates' court under section 116—I am thinking mainly of the Ribble crossing—to obtain powers if the highway authorities had been so minded. It is necessary to prove that the way in question is unnecessary. It is believed that 374 magistrates are likely to be unwilling so to find, especially if there is evidence of opposition to the proposal. While the board does not seek to dissuade highway authorities from making applications under section 116, as, if they are successful, the board and the highway authority are content, it is difficult to argue that it is an appropriate vehicle for dealing with such matters.
As the law stands, if there is considerable objection it could be a slow or futile process when one is dealing with something that, in the wider context of the works in the earlier part of the Bill, means that closures are essential. If we are to use the present procedures, the board has no alternative. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that, although he and I may share views about how things should be done on another occasion.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettI admired the work done by the Joint Committee on private Bill procedure and I hope that much of its work will be implemented quickly. It strikes me that promoting a private Bill could save some time. On other occasions, will British Rail consider starting, proceedings under the Highways Act 1980 so that, when it reaches this stage, it can say that local agreement has been reached or that a local inquiry has been undertaken and that the inspector has found that there is a case for closure? I believe that that would simplify things.
§ Mr. McNair-WilsonI am sure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks will have been noted by the board and others, and I hope that they will be carefully, considered.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East discussed the Sandwell borough council problem. He referred to the school and the new buildings. It is important to note that, conscious that the crossing is of such potential danger, the council has concluded that the only satisfactory solution would be to close it completely. Coincidentally, the council's education committee has proposals for extending the accommodation at the main Alexandra high school, thereby enabling it to close the annex in Queen's road. Therefore the only caveat which the council has is that the crossing should remain open until July 1990, when the academic year ends. The hon. Gentleman stressed that point. Against that background the board, by clause 19 of the Bill, seeks power to stop up the crossing.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider that that is a fair solution given the problems relating to a busy piece of track and the possible dangers to children and others if something is not done.
The proposals are comparatively modest. They do not represent major pieces of railway building, but are essential to the proper performance of the railway system. Therefore, I hope that the House will now allow the Bill to go forward to Committee for further consideration.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.