HC Deb 02 December 1991 vol 200 cc78-82

As amended, (in the Standing Committee), considered. Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

7 pm

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson (New Forest)

The nice juxtaposition of the remaining stages of the British Railways Bill and the Transport and Works Bill, debate on which preceded it, will not have escaped hon. Members' attention. The latter is likely to make Bills such as the British Railways Bill unnecessary.

The Bill was deposited in November last year, had an unopposed Second Reading on 19 March and was reported on 13 June. It may assist hon. Members if I refresh their memories by saying that the Bill has 47 clauses. In their various ways, all are concerned with improving the general structure of British Rail's operations throughout the country and, so far as is possible, continuing the policy which has been in place for some years of encouraging the transfer of the movement of goods and passengers from road to rail.

In some instances, the principal works outlined in the Bill are reinstatements of old works. For the convenience of the House, I shall go through some of the more important works provisions. Work No. 1 provides for the reinstatement of a chord line at Guide Bridge in Greater Manchester to assist the construction industry in moving stone by rail rather than by heavy lorries. Work No. 2 provides for the reinstatement of a curve at Edge Hill, Liverpool, to allow coal trains for Gladstone dock to reach Fiddler's Ferry power station—again, a move from road to rail.

Work No. 3 provides for the restoration of the rail link between St. Helens and St. Helens junction on the Liverpool and Manchester railway to take account of the new passenger service between St. Helens and Warrington. Work No. 4 provides for a temporary diversion of the railway at Bingley to allow the construction of a bridge for the Airedale trunk road. Works Nos. 5 and 6 allow the construction of two extra tracks on the western approach to Leeds station to handle the increasing number of passenger trains planned for the future with West Yorkshire passenger transport executive.

Work No. 7 relates to the rail link to Dover, which ultimately will be of great significance to the channel tunnel plans. A new footbridge will be provided for pedestrians and the nearby Crow Corner bridge will be widened to take the extra road traffic. It will mean a general improvement in traffic flow in the area.

Work No. 8, which was of significance on Second Reading, provides for the establishment of a chord line at Clarborough near Gainsborough, which will allow coal trains from the Immingham coal terminal to reach Cottam power station direct. It was agreed that it is far better to move coal by rail than by road.

Work No. 9 is for a new siding at Sherburn in Elmet, between Pontefract and York, to carry gypsum trains. That gypsum is a by-product of the flue gas desulphurisation plant at Drax power station, and trains will use the new railway siding which is to be built there.

Small changes were made to the Bill in Committee. As hon. Members will see, they are typographical changes.

Under clause 29, three level crossings were to have their status reduced. The Bill was amended so that all three crossings would retain their status as bridleways. That is the only change of any significance. The rest of the Bill contains the normal, standard provisions with which the House will be familiar. They have been included in every British Rail Bill so far and I do not intend to waste time explaining them yet again unless specific questions are raised.

It is essential to recognise that the Bill is part of a continuing strategy. It is important, therefore, that it should progress swiftly to the statute book. I am always delighted to play a small part in assisting British Rail to achieve powers which are of such significance to its operational future. I hope that the Bill will be given a Third Reading.

7.6 pm

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

I do not intend to detain the House for more than a few moments on a Bill which, as the hon. Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) pointed out, makes some additions to our railway system. I am bound to say, however, that a Bill which adds a few metres to our railway system is a poor comparison with provisions in France, where they add to the railway system by hundreds of kilometres at a time. I found it painful to have to talk in metres and kilometres rather than the furlongs and miles which are the normal way of describing lengths of railway, but there is a big difference between what happens in this country and what happens in France, whatever measurements one uses.

My point arises from a statement on behalf of the promoters, which was made available to hon. Members. It stated: The Board are continuing with their attempts to negotiate a settlement with those opposing the Bill and, meanwhile, respectfully submit that the Bill should be permitted to pass Consideration stage and proceed to Third Reading. I wish to counsel hon. Members that all the undertakings and all the arrangements that BR negotiates with people to secure the passage of the Bill must be considered in the light of experience.

My experience is that, when BR undertook to restore overnight services on the east coast main line, it did not carry out its undertakings. The result is that I continue to receive a great deal of correspondence from angry constituents who want to know why they cannot have an overnight service to and from London, which they used to have and which could readily be provided.

When those who are still worried about some aspects of the Bill are approached by members of British Rail bearing gifts of concessions and arrangements which they expect to be the basis of letting the Bill proceed through all its stages, I hope that they will bear that experience in mind and recognise that sometimes those undertakings are not worth the paper they are written on. I hope that reminders of what happened in the past will eventually persuade BR to reverse that foolish decision.

7.8 pm

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)

I recognise that I spoke just before 7 o'clock on the Transport and Works Bill, and it may be worth linking it with the British Railways Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) on the way in which he presented the Bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)

Order. Perhaps I should give a little guidance and remind the House that this is a most historic day and a most historic time. For many years, the House has sought to improve the private Bill procedure. It made the changes a short time ago and the rules of debate are therefore new to us today. We are now on Third Reading and the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) can refer not to what might have been or to what should have been but only to precisely what is in the Bill.

Mr. Bottomley

If that debars me from continuing to congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he has presented the Bill, I apologise, but it will probably be in order for me to congratulate a fellow hon. Member on his speech, which is what I was trying to do.

Madam Deputy Speaker

But not to link it to the previous Bill.

Mr. Bottomley

I was going to say, by way of apology, that my service on European Standing Committee B prevented me from being here during the previous debate. Those words are not part of this Bill—I am fully aware of what this Bill is about.

I had not intended to oppose the Bill. My precise reason is dissimilar to those of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), but British Rail has annoyed me. It has found a way to let an operator use part of British Rail property for a market without planning permission. If that continues to be an option for British Rail, I regard it as a suitable reason to oppose many British Rail Bills.

In view of all the fuss about shops opening on Sundays, for British Rail land, made available by agreement or by authority under such Bills, then to be used for another purpose to the exclusion of those who wish to use the railways, makes one wonder whether the new procedures are right or whether Parliament should retain some control under the procedure which will operate if the previous Bill receives Royal Assent. I think that I am right in saying that the Bill received a Second Reading but has not gone through all its stages.

The issues that we are discussing are basically about safety and level crossings. I strongly support the idea of British Rail having powers to get rid of unsafe crossings of railway lines, because the speed at which trains now move requires more bridges and more grade separation. It is a mistake for British Rail Bills to leave out powers to close bridleways. My hon. Friend mentioned—as I do in passing —that that change has been made to the Bill since it was last considered on the Floor of the House. As more trains use the lines, and as headway is reduced, people must accept that there is greater danger for those who cross railway lines at rail level.

During my service as a junior Northern Ireland Minister, I had the experience of going to the Slaght level crossing crash outside Ballymena. Anyone who has seen the effect on a train—let alone on a car—of a train hitting a car will understand the importance of supporting British Rail in its basic aim of increasing safety of railway lines.

My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest mentioned bringing back into use lines which had previously had railways on them. It is an issue on which this country made a mistake compared with France. I think that I am right in saying that, where a railway line was taken up in France, it was not available for other use but was protected.

In the United Kingdom—this applies to Great Britain and to Northern Ireland—we have too often allowed small sections of land to pass into other hands at low prices. That is partly due to the ideology of the present Government during the past 12 years—they were not willing to look ahead to see changes in transport needs and to accept that there might be different competitive advantages in different forms of transport.

I strongly support what my hon. Friend said about trying to help to move traffic from the roads to the railways where that is commercially viable and, if necessary, with some subsidy. Again I refer to previous experience, this time at the Department of Transport. Although I was called the Minister for Roads, I strongly supported the apparent subsidies to have heavy goods railheads in quarries and to allow other goods to go by rail where possible and thus to allow British Rail to get freight business as though between consenting adults instead of by Government diktat. That is an important way of allowing British Rail's freight business to become more prosperous.

British Rail should give more consideration to replacements for unsafe and unsatisfactory pedestrian bridges over railways. That also applies to subway tunnels. Many of the bridges and tunnels built in the 1920s and 1930s are no longer satisfactory. There is a greater expectation that people with pushchairs and shopping and that elderly people should be able to take gentle ramps rather than decaying concrete steps.

I hope that, if British Rail is willing to consider the issue, it will examine not only the Sunday market in my constituency, which I regard as unsatisfactory, but the crossing of the railway line at Middle Park, which, although it is not part of this Bill, should be.

7.14 pm
Sir John Farr (Harborough)

I do not want to delay progress, but someone must say that he is not entirely happy about the way in which British Rail has promoted the Bill and about the contents of some of the clauses. Many of us believe that parts of the Bill—especially part III, which has been considered in Committee—could be improved.

There is a widely held view in Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and the east midlands in general that British Rail is riding rough shod over many thousands of people and their elected representatives merely by failing to take the opportunities available. For example, part III contains provisions for the purchase of and rights over land, part IV relates to protective possession and part V contains the usual provisions relating to planning permission and arbitration.

A great sense of frustration is building up because many hon. Members feel that the Bill represents a lost opportunity for British Rail. I shall seek to remain in order by referring to what is in the Bill. Nevertheless, I must say briefly that the constant inability of British Rail in successive British Railway Bills to recognise a real need is causing much frustration. If one writes to British Rail, one gets the brush-off. If one writes and asks—or begs—British Rail to include improvements in the Bill which it could easily have done by extending part III, one gets the same treatment.

Part III deals with purchase of land and the rights over land and schedule 3(1) specifies the purpose. Those parts of the Bill are vehicles for British Rail to do work that is publicly demanded but which it resolutely refuses to give even the slightest hint that it contemplates.

I thoroughly welcome the Bill, but it is what is missing that worries me. What is missing and what concerns tens of thousands of us is that the midland main line should be electrified as soon as possible.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I have given guidance on the rules of debate. This is Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.