Transport and Works Bill

HC Deb 02 December 1991 vol 200 cc39-77

Order for Second Reading read.

4.27 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This is one of those rare Bills which will change radically the business that Parliament transacts. It is being presented in response to the work of the Joint Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure, which is chaired so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson). I pay tribute to him for the way in which he conducted the Committee and to its report and findings.

There has been a remarkable increase in weighty private legislation authorising public transport schemes and works at ports. This reflects the profound changes in those industries. It has become clear that Parliament is not prepared, as it once was, to see numerous Bills brought before it to authorise such schemes and works. For example, in 1838, Parliament was able to deal with the 62 Bills deposited in that Session with relative ease. Today, Parliament has great difficulty in handling less than half that number of new Bills each Session. A number of causes cêlêbres have emphasised that.

The Bill will give effect in the most part to the proposals published in "Private Bills and New Procedures", the consultation document published by the Government in June 1990. It proposed that a system of ministerial orders should be created to cover the works most frequently authorised by private Bill—railway and tramway works —and that the Harbours Act 1964 should be amended to encompass a greater range of measures than it does at present. The consultation documents was widely welcomed in the House and elsewhere. Those who currently promote Bills had reservations about the time that would be taken under the new procedures to authorise projects and I shall deal with these issues as I describe the Bill. First, I shall make some general comments.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare)

My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the wide acceptance that the consultation procedure produced. He may be aware also that the Select Committee which dealt with the matter earlier—which he rightly complimented—did not mention canals or inland waterways. There was no consultation with the inland waterway authorities. If my hon. Friend intends to press ahead with that part of the Bill, will he either immediately consult those bodies or, better still, build into the Bill a consultation procedure before the orders, which could be very damaging to small organisations, are made law?

Mr. McLoughlin

I will cover some of my hon. Friend's points later, but I assure him that we want to hear from all relevant bodies. We are still open to consultation on specific points about which individuals or organisations feel aggrieved.

We tried to achieve a fair balance between the interests of promoters and those who are affected by their proposals —the objectors. A system for authorising projects should not be used as a means of holding up development that is generally desirable. At the same time, promoters should be sensitive to the needs of those on whose lives their proposals will impinge.

The well-established local inquiry system, which has been with us for more than 40 years, enables the promoters' proposals and the views of objectors to be examined thoroughly. It will be one of the available means for deciding new orders. The Government's concern is to provide a framework in which decisions can be made as quickly as possible, while affording those with an interest a proper opportunity to make their views known. That is what part I of the Bill does.

Part II contains safety measures for railways and other forms of guided transport. Some are necessary because the principal legislation is so out of date that private Bills have been used to give the railway inspectorate the powers it needs to supervise railway and tramway works. The most important changes are made by chapter I of part II, which provides a modern code on drink and drugs abuse.

This is a technical Bill and therefore I shall not describe every clause in detail, but I will pick out the main features. The first four clauses describe the kind of works that will be subject to the new system. They empower the Secretary of State to make orders authorising railway, tramway, trolley bus and inland waterway schemes. They refer to guided transport systems that are to be further described in regulations.

Right hon. and hon. Members who are familiar with those matters will know that there are already several novel systems of that type in the country and more are planned. We want to avoid the need for private Bills for those systems, so we drafted a comprehensive definition in an attempt to provide for all foreseeable modes. However, it seems wise to provide for specific regulations to be made later, when it has been possible more closely to assess their principal features.

There is also a power to prescribe types of work that would interfere with rights of navigation. Those, too can be varied. At present, such works mostly require a private Bill.

It would be convenient to mention time scales at this point. We are not introducing this legislation primarily to speed up the process of approving works, but it is important to ensure that we do not slow them down. We looked at the recent history of the progress of private Bills —not just the notorious ones, but all the others. There can be no doubt that they are taking longer to enact.

Private Bills used commonly to be passed in a single Session. The average time for Bills that have now passed was 19 months. At the beginning of this Session, no fewer than 23 transport or other works Bills were still before the House from previous Sessions, including one that started in 1988. I understand that some 23 new Bills were deposited last Wednesday, 16 of which would involve works. That means that the average time taken is bound to increase.

The time taken by local inquiries and by the inspector to write his report has been criticised in the past. In recent years, the Department of the Environment has done a great deal to sharpen up inquiry procedures, with some success. We therefore hold to the view, advanced in the consultation document, that projects which are progressed by order will, on the whole, take no longer than private Bills and that the smaller ones will progress much more quickly.

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson (New Forest)

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's earlier remarks, but to make sure that we avoid incorporating delay in the new procedures, will there be no holding out on a decision whether or not to grant an order? Is my hon. Friend prepared to stipulate a timetable in the Bill, so that the Secretary of State could not unreasonably delay his determination on whether an order should be granted? Also, will my hon. Friend make it clear that if inquiries are necessary in certain areas because there are objections, enough inspectors will be available to conduct those inquiries? If not, a large number of public inquiries could be in the pipeline—and in the case of railway works in particular, that could slow down the development of the system.

Mr. McLoughlin

The suggestion that the Secretary of State should have to adhere to a timetable is an interesting one that does not appear on the face of the Bill.

Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch)

It jolly well should.

Mr. McLoughlin

I shall look closely at my hon. Friend's suggestion. The Department of Transport does not wish to hold up schemes after an inquiry has been held. Important works are often necessary. My hon. Friend also asked whether sufficient inspectors are available. We shall keep that matter under constant review. If problems arise, we shall have to address them. I can be no more specific than that.

Orders may be applied for at any time, whereas at some moment private Bills can be deposited only once a year. In some respects, that would help the flow. It would do away with the great dash to deposit Bills by a certain date in November. The very fact that there would be no specific date by which orders had to be deposited and that they could start their natural progression at any time of the year would go some way towards relieving the existing bottleneck.

The Joint Committee also identified limitations in the Harbours Act which meant that, even though harbour works could be authorised by order, the private Bill route would still be available. There were some purposes for which orders were not available—for example, the setting up and construction of purely recreational harbours. These matters are dealt with in clause 57 and schedule 3. I should mention here that we have not provided for the complete closure of a harbour by means of a harbour order. Dismantling the regulatory, navigational and conservancy functions of a harbour authority might raise wider issues which we thought should still come before Parliament on the rare occasions when the closure of a harbour is envisaged.

Those clauses cover a good 95 per cent. of all the works Bills that come to Parliament. What remains are those works which are normally authorised by procedures outside Parliament, but, because of the need to amend private enactments, some aspect of the scheme must come here. It would have stretched unduly the scope of the Bill to deal with those circumstances and a general provision would have been indefensibly vague. The Joint Committee recommended that the private Bill system should be so policed that only the powers required to be sought in Parliament should be the subject of a Bill and that, if its primary purpose could be achieved elsewhere, it should be.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

The Minister has outlined the order-making procedure and compared it with the private Bill procedure. The abolition of the private Bill procedure would have certain advantages, but does not the Minister think that the orders which are to take the place of the private Bill procedure should be subject to the affirmative procedure? The scrutiny of negative procedure instruments in this place is appalling. There is no guarantee that time will be made available to debate a prayer. The Bill therefore provides Ministers with a great deal of power that will be subject to no scrutiny. It is going from one extreme to the other.

Mr. McLoughlin

I understand the hon. Gentleman's criticisms, but I hope to be able to answer some of them later. If he is here when I do so, he will hear me explain why we feel that the affirmative procedure is not the best course to adopt in some cases.

It is, of course, for the House authorities to act on these matters and to decide when a private Bill should come before the House. I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means is content that they have adequate powers to do so.

Clause 5 deals with what may go in the orders described in clause 1 to 4. Our examination of the purposes for which private legislation has been sought has led us to seek this power; schedule 1 lists some of the objects for which orders may be made. The powers in subsection (3) are apparently wide, but can be exercised only in relation to the objects for which an order could be made. They will be used to apply existing legislation—on compensation, for example —to apply or disapply the old Railways Clauses Acts and to modify legislation so that its purpose is retained but it is tailored more closely to the requirements of the relevant order. Paragraph 51 of the Joint Committee report foresaw that a provision of this sort would be necessary.

The procedure for making orders is dealt with in clauses 6 to 14. It follows the normal pattern which we have come to expect where orders are made by Ministers following a public inquiry. Clause 6 enables the Secretary of State to make rules about applications for orders. The rules will require that an environmental statement should be submitted with most applications for orders. We may have a system like the one that applies to private Bills now, where the applicant might seek a dispensation from the Secretary of State that an environmental statement need not be submitted because the works proposed in question order were clearly not likely to have significant environmental effects.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn (Southport)

The hon. Gentleman mentioned public inquiries. Does the procedure mean that Ministers can state how long a public inquiry should last —one week, two weeks and so on?

Mr. McLoughlin

The Bill does not provide that power. It would be wrong if it did. A public inquiry may want to look into matters that. initially felt were not relevant. There would therefore be no time limit.

The exact text of the rules will be informed by the discussions that are now going on with the Commission. We shall abide by, the directive on environmental impact assessment, as we always have. That European directive is, I fear, vaguely drafted. The orders will in due course be based on model clauses, which can be prescribed in clause 8. Clause 7 allows the Secretary of State to propose orders for defence purposes or where works have been abandoned and are a danger to the public.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

Is the Minister happy that the promoters will have to provide environmental statements? Is that better than requiring the promoters to commission an environmental statement from a neutral body? One danger is that an organisation that is asked to produce an environmental statement in support of a scheme may look at matters differently from an organisation that is asked to produce an environmental statement from a neutral point of view.

Mr. McLoughlin

That is a problem, but I think that it would be addressed by a public inquiry. An environmental statement which was made in the initial stages could certainly be questioned by a public inquiry and by anyone who wished to make representations to it.

Mr. Bennett

As Ministers have decided that the House should approve a measure first, surely the House should have that independent information before making its decision. I have coresponded with the Minister about the possibility of having two stages in Parliament, one before and one after an inquiry. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's arguments about not having a second stage, although no doubt we shall come to that matter in Committee. If Parliament is to give its approval about a scheme before a public inquiry is held, it is important that it has available to it impartial environmental information before making any decision in principle.

Mr. McLoughlin

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am not dealing with a scheme's national significance, when Parliament would be asked to give a broad view: I am dealing with strict criteria and local public inquiries, rather than a later stage. The hon. Gentleman's point about independent environmental statements can best be discussed in Committee, when we can listen to the arguments in full, but it is certainly worth thinking about.

I hope that, in dealing with clause 9, I shall cover some of the points made by the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). The clause is important, even though I do not expect its provisions to be exercised often. The Joint Committee noted that there were occasionally schemes of such importance that they touched on national policy, and a variety of devices had been used to bring them before Parliament. In the debates on the Joint Committee report, there were those in both Houses who wanted such a mechanism.

In the consultation document, we suggested that that might be done by affirmative resolution after a public inquiry, but a number of objections were put to us. Perhaps the most important is that, if Parliament is going to say no to such an important scheme, it should do so early in its progress rather than waste a lot of time and money and cause invonvenience to those who would be affected by the scheme. The Council on Tribunals was concerned that the inquiry system could be brought into disrepute if, after a long and thorough inquiry, the whole process were overturned by perhaps a single vote in Parliament. The Royal Town Planning Institute recommended that local decisions should always be taken in a strategic framework and, although I would not go quite that far, what we are proposing is consistent with its suggestion.

There is, of course, another point of view. There are those who say that no decision in principle should be made until all the details of a scheme are thoroughly investigated. I certainly agree that no final decision should be made until that has been done, but these schemes are so huge that it is simply not practical to work them and all the other options up in fine detail before making a decision in principle. No decision in principle often means no decision at all. If this country is to prosper, it must be able to make difficult decisions of this kind.

In any such case, the draft order and supporting documents, including the environmental statement, will be available to Parliament at least two months before any debate—that point, which was made by the hon. Member for Bradford, South, could certainly be considered in Committee. Both Houses would then be invited to pass a resolution which endorsed the need for the project and, broadly, the chosen option, but all the questions about detailed alignments, mitigating environmental effects and so on would be left to a public inquiry.

The Secretary of State would be prevented from making an order which was inconsistent with Parliament's resolution, but he would not be compelled to make the order. Those proposals should play to the strengths of Parliament, in making broad judgments, and the local inquiry, which is better suited to sorting out local details.

Clauses 10 and 11 deal with the handling of objections and inquiries. They provide for a full local inquiry and fewer formal hearings or written representations. A relevant local authority or the owner of land proposed to be taken by the order may insist on an inquiry or a hearing; otherwise, the method of assessing objections is left to the Secretary of State. The inquiry rules will be made under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971. Once the objections have been considered, the Secretary of State will make his decision on the order under clause 13 and publicise his decision under clause 14. There will be no further parliamentary involvement unless National Trust or common land is to be taken, in which case special parliamentary procedures could apply.

One of the advantages of a private Bill is that all the consents for a scheme which would otherwise be required under different legislation can be obtained in one go. Clauses 15 to 20 seek to achieve that for orders.

Clause 23 makes provision for the handling in the courts of any proceedings about orders and is modelled on very similar provisions in the Highways Act 1980 and the Harbours Act 1964.

When we published the consultation document, we thought that there might be schemes so local in impact that they should be dealt with by local authorities. On examining the matter further, we have found them to be too few to warrant the legislative apparatus, including possible appeals, which would be required. Clause 24 gives power to the Secretary of State to transfer certain classes of case to inspectors on the model of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 if experience shows that to be the best way of dealing with them.

The system of orders which I have been discussing will not apply in Scotland. The existing Scottish system, governed by the Private Legislation Procedures (Scotland) Act 1936, is judged generally to work well. The greater part of the Scottish private legislation procedure is administered locally, is relatively informal and takes up very little parliamentary time. One effect is that cross-border schemes will continue to require private legislation. That requires an amendment to the 1936 Act which is contained in clause 25. However, such cases will be rare.

I come now to the safety provisions and, first, to the offences about drink and drugs in clauses 27 to 41. These provisions back up operators' strict policy on alcohol and drug abuse. It is a rule on BR that no one should report for duty under the influence of, nor take while on duty, alcohol or any other substance which might impair their safety, efficiency or vigilance. Similar provisions apply to London Underground staff. BR's code of practice views contraventions of that rule very seriously and regards dismissal as the normal result. BR has a policy of pre-employment testing for drugs of recruits to safety posts. It also has voluntary in-service and post-incident testing.

Although the operators' disciplinary codes are useful, experience has shown that statutory provision is necessary. Clauses 27 to 41 provide comprehensive powers. The House will no doubt be relieved to know that, as most of those clauses are based on road traffic legislation, t do not propose to describe them in detail. For nearly 150 years, it has been an offence to work on a railway while drunk.

After a railway accident at Morpeth in 1984, the Government undertook to modernise the drink offence and extend it to drugs in the light of the inspector's subsequent report. Since then, we have had the Cannon street case. After the inquest, the coroner wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State about the absence of police testing powers. I have put a copy of his letter in the Library. We have concluded that the law must be brought up to date. Most people whom we consulted this autumn agreed with us and with what we propose.

Clauses 28 and 29 are the key ones. They create criminal offences of being unfit through drink or drugs or being "over the limit" of alcohol in the body while working on a railway, and of operating a railway where such offences have been committed without doing all that is reasonable to prevent them. We have specified the types of work in respect of which offences might be committed. They are all jobs where it is possible to affect directly the safety of the travelling public.

The operator has an important role to play in preventing incidents of this sort. Operators must show that they have taken all reasonable precautions to prevent drinking and drug taking if they are to avoid prosecution. As the House will see, at clause 56, it will be possible to prosecute individual directors as well as companies for safety offences under this Bill. The provisions also apply to tramways and other forms of guided transport.

We have decided that the alcohol limits in this Bill should be the same as for road traffic offences. It would be hard to justify a difference, say, for a tram driver or a bus driver on the same road. The best rule is for no one to work on the railway when under the influence. That is reflected in the operators' rule book. The limits in the Bill do not imply that drinking up to these limits is a safe practice. The offence of exceeding the prescribed alcohol limit is a second line of defence to operators' strict standards, and the prescribed alcohol limit is that which justifies a criminal—rather than disciplinary—offence. We will keep the prescribed limits under review, and clause 39 enables them to be amended by regulations.

This is not the place to discuss whether the road traffic alcohol limits are right. The British Medical Association has pressed for them to be lower, but I must say to the House that lower limits, whether on roads or railways, should be soundly based. If we are to criminalise an action, we must be sure that an act has been committed which justifies the term "criminal". The first line of defence must be the working rules operated by British Rail and other railway undertakers, which is a matter of employment practice. The limits in the Bill do not imply that drinking and drug-taking of any kind by railwaymen is a safe practice.

The remainder of the safety clauses are in the Bill principally because, without them, some private legislation would still be required. Clauses 42 to 44 give the railway inspectorate powers to carry out supervision of new work and to receive accident reports. We are taking this opportunity to implement the recommendations of the Fennell and Hidden reports on the King's Cross and Clapham Junction accidents which also pointed out that the legislation, which dates from 1871 and 1933, is inadequate to deal with modern conditions.

Consequently, clause 42 gives the Secretary of State a wide power to make regulations about the approval of new works and equipment to be used on railways, tramways, trolley vehicle systems and other systems of guided transport. Clause 43 extends the powers of inspectors to all those forms of transport. Clause 44 allows for the reporting not only of accidents but of those incidents which could easily have led to them, such as signals failing on anything but red.

The provisions at clause 46 and 47 are principally aimed at heritage railways and tramways which have blossomed all over the country. They are normally authorised by light railway orders made under the Light Railways Act 1896. They will now come within these provisions except in Scotland where the Scottish private legislation procedure will apply, but it is thought wise to take powers limiting speeds and loads and to ensure that these railways are properly insured against accidents involving third parties.

There has been some controversy about clause 48 and schedule 2, which amend the Highways Act 1980 so that footpaths and bridleways which cross railways can be stopped up or diverted on safety grounds. That can be done only by a private Bill at present, the most inappropriate means imaginable for something which is essentially local. In these provisions, we have tried to strike a balance between safety and convenience and we have provided for a local inquiry to examine all the issues.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

We are all worried about safety —there have been some horrific accidents—but does the Minister accept that, if the balance is to be right, the Bill should contain a mechanism under which British Rail, when speeding up train times on the line, should be required to provide either an underpass or a bridge?

Mr. McLoughlin

That might be one of the matters best addressed by the local inquiry. A private Bill is not the best method for such matters because of the possible delay involved. We could consider the issue in Committee, but it will need to be considered by the local inquiry because it is essentially a local matter rather than one that needs to come before the House.

The remainder of the clauses deal with safety at level crossings, especially private ones.

If Parliament passes the Bill, we would hope to have the new orders system running as soon as possible. As the House will understand, the Bill provides for a lot of secondary legislation—for orders and the safety provisions —which must be in place before the new system can work properly. It would be wrong of me to promise that we shall have it all ready by a particular date. There may be amendments which change the timetable. It is important that we get the secondary legislation right so that the new system has a good start.

In this necessarily brief tour of the Bill's provisions, I hope that I have said enough to describe broadly what we are trying to achieve.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Can the Minister make it clear to outside interests when he expects the House to stop accepting works Bills? That would be helpful and I should have thought that it would be very foolish for anyone outside—presuming that that legislation is passed—to expect to introduce a works Bill in the next Session of Parliament.

Mr. McLoughlin

I do not think that I can go further than I have already. The Standing Orders of the House do not allow issues to be introduced in private Bills if they could be introduced by any other means. When dealing with secondary legislation, we shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said. Clearly, the time scale will depend to some extent on when the Bill finally seeks the approval of both Houses.

I do not think that the Bill's provisions are controversial, but they are necessary. The legislation arises from the recommendations of the Joint Committee and I have already paid tribute to the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest chaired the Committee and made the recommendations. I am glad that we have had this opportunity to introduce legislation which, I hope, goes some way to meeting the Committee's recommendations. The Committee comprised members of all parties and made its recommendations almost unanimously. I sense that there is cross-party support and I hope that today's debate bodes well.

I commend the Bill to the House and trust that it will have a swift passage through both Houses.

4.57 pm

Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)

I believe that the Bill commands a degree of cross-party support and I shall attempt to point out the issues on which we agree as well as the one or two which might cause some difficulty at a later stage.

Part I of the Bill will replace the current parliamentary procedures for Bills involving new railway works or harbours with orders granted by the Secretary of State and subject to public inquiry. Those changes should avoid the uncertainties of the private Bill procedure and will on occasion, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I are aware, reduce the parliamentary time spent on such matters.

The regulatory provisions in part II will make an important contribution to ensuring the safety of passengers on rail and other transport systems. As for part I, I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for outlining the principle of the changes inherent in this section and, basically, we welcome them. The existing private Bill procedures impose time-consuming and unpredictable obstacles in the passage of legislation and hon. Members from both parties have occasionally used the existing procedures to delay important railway schemes as a result, sometimes, of factors not wholly related to the scheme or to the Bill in question.

I will outline some of the reasons behind our welcome for the general thrust of the Bill. We believe that the public inquiry procedure has a number of advantages over the current parliamentary rules, especially for the general public. Such inquiries are better able to consider technical details than some parliamentary Committees are. Such inquiries can be held locally rather than in London and can consider alternatives broader than merely the provisions of a single Bill. The cost of attending a parliamentary Committee hearing would be eliminated for members of the public. I hope—I seek clarification from the Minister —that the new procedures would require environmental impact assessments to be considered where appropriate. I have no wish to linger too long on the Government's griefs over their present difficulties with the European Commission, but I hope that we shall receive some reassurance from the Minister that in future such assessments will be considered.

The Bill does not concern only conventional railway schemes. A number of light rail initiatives have been taken by local authorities and some of them have already become bogged down in our somewhat elaborate procedures. Some have been bogged down as a result of deliberate delay and obfuscation at the Department of Transport. The aims of part I will be achieved in the way in which the Minister would like them to be achieved only if certain issues are properly clarified.

Clear timetables must be set for inquiry hearings and for the announcement of a decision if we are to ensure that the new procedures work more effectively than the existing procedures. I suggest that a time limit be written into the Bill in Committee: a period of six weeks for the appointment of the inspector and a similar period for the inspector to report after the conclusion of an inquiry. The Minister looks a little doubtful. I have no doubt that his advisers will tell him, "That is very difficult, Minister." I can see some of their lips moving now on those lines.

I hope that Conservative Members who take an interest in such matters will agree that with schemes which might be embarrassing for any Government or might lead to difficulties in any area for a prominent member of any Government, the temptation without a laid down time limit would be to prevaricate, especially if an embarrassing political event, such as a general election, was due. I know that the Minister will want to do what he can to reassure people outside that such unworldly considerations will not unduly delay schemes to be considered under the Bill.

Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight)

I am pleased to hear what the hon. Gentleman has said. Will he confirm to the House for the record that, if a Labour Government faced an inquiry concerning one of the privatised industries—privatised industries, such as Associated British Ports, hitherto required private legislation—he would believe that a timetable should be instituted by a Labour Secretary of State who might be tempted to use the public inquiry procedure as a way to delay implementation of the reforms? That might hold up the trading position of that privatised industry.

Mr. Snape

I assure the hon. Gentleman that any transport industry affected by the Bill would be treated by an incoming Labour Government in exactly the way that I urge the Minister to treat such an industry. The hon. Gentleman may be artful in introducing such irrelevancies —[Interruption.] Once again the Whip, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) cannot contain himself on the Government Front Bench. He obviously has not read the legislation. Of course, it is not his job to do so —his job is to get the Bill on the statute book regardless of what it contains.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who takes an interest in these matters even if his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam does not, will be aware that the Bill is specific about the industries that it covers. It covers transport matters, most of which are railway matters. I assure the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that I urge its provisions, with the safeguards that I propose, not merely on a Conservative Government, but on a future Labour Government whom I expect to abide by them as well.

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Snape

I fear that the hon. Gentleman will not be able to resist some political barb about these matters. If he does make such a barb, I may pursue him down that road, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the early cross-party consensus may be prejudiced. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment. If, after reflection, he wants to intervene, I shall be delighted to give way.

The Secretary of State must adopt standard criteria for deciding which schemes come within the remit of clause 9 —"schemes of national significance". Before the hon. Member for Isle of Wight intervenes, I must tell him that such decisions should not be left simply to the discretion of a Secretary of State, even a Secretary of State as wise and as far-seeing as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).

Mr. Moate

I shall be as constructive and as cross-party as the hon. Gentleman always is to me. We all welcome timetables which require Secretaries of State to set up planning inquiries rapidly, although there are practical difficulties. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are trying to make the normal planning procedures apply to railway works? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would urge any future Government to set up a public inquiry within a certain time? Is he saying that the Labour party commits itself to do the same on all planning matters? The arguments that apply to roads, highways and housing are the same as those that apply to railway works. If the hon. Gentleman is not saying that, why not?

Mr. Snape

The short answer is that it is vital that a time limit is laid down for minor schemes. It would be impossible and undesirable to put time limits on the length of an inquiry into a major scheme. However, a future Labour Government would approve such a time limit for appointing inspectors and for reporting after the conclusion of an inquiry. I stress that that does not affect the length of time of the inquiry because, for obvious reasons, some inquiries will be more detailed and technical than others. However, the time limits on either side which I have proposed are eminently reasonable and I look forward to urging them on the ever-receptive ears of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East.

Will the Minister assure us that if a scheme does not come within the remit of clause 9, the rules for making objections under clause 10 will not unreasonably limit those objections? It would be highly unsatisfactory if inquiries were limited to very local and detailed issues concerning, for example, the precise alignment of a route and if they could not consider wider issues that might affect people locally.

There should be a clear separation between the order-making procedure and the role of the Secretary of State in grant-aiding, for example, light rail schemes. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that.

The Bill does not provide for local order-making power for minor schemes, although such a provision was included in the original consultation paper. Would it not be more sensible if in relation, for example, to small changes to previously aproved schemes, such local power was reinstated? Under the Bill, it does not seem logical that minor proposals would also go back to the Secretary of State and would be subject to the full-blown order-making procedures.

For railway proposals that include the closure of an existing line or station, it appears that the new procedure wil replace the closure consideration held by the local transport users consultative committees. Will the Minister give us an assurance that all objections will be heard at the public inquiry, and that both the relevant TUCC and any individual users affected will be given the status of statutory objectors under clause 2?

I will ask the Minister to comment on other provisions in part I in due course, especially if the Government are really committed to helping local authorities plan and implement light rail and other desperately needed public transport initiatives. Will the Government give a commitment during the passage of the Bill to review investment appraisal techniques and rules to ensure that differences in such techniques for road and rail schemes cease to result in discrimination against public transport schemes in the allocation of resources?

Will the Minister give us an undertaking that his Department will work with local authority associations to develop a package approach to transport investment in urban areas under the provisions in the Bill? Does he accept that there is a need to develop a transport investment programme embracing all transport modes, which would replace existing trunk road and the transport supplementary grants programme? Will the Minister undertake to inform the promoters of major public transport schemes whether such schemes have passed grant appraisal, even if the Treasury tells him and his fellow Ministers that funds are not available and, given its habitual parsimony, are unlikely to be available in the foreseeable future?

I want now to consider part II and the introduction of a new regime controlling the use of drink and drugs by those who work on the railways. Working in the railway industry is, from my experience, to become involved in a mixture of long-standing rules and regulations and to be subject to an everyday system of discipline which is almost akin to military life.

The observance of numerous rules and regulations by those working in extremely responsible albeit pretty shabbily paid jobs explains the 150-year-old safety record of railways and lies behind my belief that a modern railway system is still the safest mode of transport. However, over the years there have been a number of railway accidents which have been partly or completely alcohol—related. In a modern high-speed, high-technology railway environment, the provisions of the Railway Regulation Act 1842 about the conduct of what were known then, and in my experience are occasionally still known now, as railway servants, are obviously outdated.

Those of us who are interested in railway matters, railway management, the men and women who work in the industry and their trade unions all support the provisions of part II which deal with those matters. Having said that, there are a number of points that I want to put to the Minister about the introduction of the regulations which are based on the Road Traffic Act 1988.

My first point relates to the decision in the Bill to adopt the same limits of alcohol concentration for a train driver's offence as are prescribed for drivers of motor vehicles. At the outset, we should acknowledge that the driving of trains by drivers whose ability is in anyway impaired by alcohol could lead to consequences far worse than those caused by drivers of even the heaviest motor vehicles.

The British Medical Association has written to hon. Members about the Bill and has made known its concern at the possibility of a person driving a train with a blood alcohol concentration above 80 mg per 100 ml. It is right to draw our attention to that. The best possible concentration of alcohol while a driver is on duty is zero. It should certainly be less than the proposal in the Bill.

The possible anomaly to which the Under-Secretary of State rightly drew our attention was the subject of discussion behind the scenes. A Treasury solicitor suggested to the draftsmen of the Bill that, unless we varied the proposed limits, it would be anomalous, to say the least, for the driver of a Manchester metro vehicle to be prosecuted if his blood alcohol count was less than that of the driver of a motor vehicle with whom he had collided.

The Minister was right to say that this debate is not the time or place to consider blood alcohol levels and whether the levels should be reduced, but none of us would enjoy being told that the driver of our train had been breathalysed and had revealed a blood alcohol level slightly below the legal limit and was then, under the provisions of the Bill, free to drive the train. I am sure that all hon. Members would accept that the best alcohol limit for train drivers is zero. However, I appreciate the difficulty of enforcing such a provision.

Mr. McLoughlin

This important point requires clarification. Under BR's code of employment, it would be an offence for a driver to have taken alcohol before coming on duty. The Bill is concerned about criminal negligence or liability, and that is a point for wider debate. However, it should not be thought that we condone people driving trains if they have consumed alcohol before taking charge of those trains. The difference between criminal law and BR's operational guidelines is important.

Mr. Snape

I understand that, and I am grateful to the Minister for pointing it out. He is aware that the BMA has expressed considerable reservations about the enforcement of the levels and about the legislation, particularly given the lack of experience of the transport police in administering the law in respect of railway staff. Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether the provisions of the Bill will be operated specifically and only by the transport police.

Mr. McLoughlin

indicated dissent.

Mr. Snape

We shall be asking for more details in Committee about who else will be involved and how they will discharge their duties. While I stress that we believe that the safest limit is no alcohol at all, we should be reluctant to see the Metropolitan police in London entering railway property willy-nilly to enforce the provisions of the Bill. Could that happen under part II? Will police forces other than the transport police be responsible for administering certain aspects of the Bill?

Mr. McLoughlin

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Primarily, it will be for the British Transport police to carry out the tests. However, other police forces will also be able to enforce provisions if a transport police constable is not available, or in relation to systems not covered by the British Transport Police, such as tramways, preserved railways and the Tyne and Wear metro. Normally, however, one would expect the transport police to be responsible, but it is possible for other police officers to conduct tests.

Mr. Snape

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that, and we shall wish to return to the matter in Committee because there must be safeguards on both sides. In Committee we shall consider the way in which this merited and necessary change in the law can be administered.

Chapter II of part II provides for amendments to legislation dealing with railways and similar systems and the footpaths that cross them. It amends the Highways Act 1980 to allow closure or diversion of footpath crossings on grounds of safety. That part of the Bill has been strongly opposed by the Ramblers Association, but I imagine that it will be welcomed by railway locomotive drivers who, for example, face more than 100 such crossings whenever they drive from King's Cross to Newcastle.

The blocking of footpaths and the removal of rights of way are obviously contentious. As a former railwayman, I read the views of the Ramblers Association with some scepticism. In its brief, the Ramblers Association has stated that it doubts whether such new powers are needed. That shows a failure to appreciate the dangers of crossing a railway line. Those dangers were amply illustrated by the recent terrible accident at Carr lane crossing, Doncaster, when a woman and two small children were killed.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

rose—

Mr. Snape

I know that my hon. Friend will have something to say about this matter and I shall give way to him later.

In the case to which I have referred, the footpath to a privately owned nature reserve crossed five railway tracks. The maximum speed of trains on at least two of those tracks was 125 mph. At that speed, pedestrians would have had seven seconds from the time the train came into view until it reached the crossing. For the Ramblers Association to state: BR should be required to improve safety or make reasonable alternative provision, for example by building a bridge demonstrates a lack of feeling for the views of the bereaved and for the two drivers involved, both of whom will remember that tragedy every day for the rest of their lives.

Mr. Bennett

The Ramblers Association does not dispute that there is a problem. It has made it quite clear that it believes that the existing legislation can deal with such matters. The association has stated clearly that it is up to British Rail—and, perhaps, the Government—to take such dangers into account if they wish to increase railway speeds, as many of us would like, and to ensure that people can cross the line safely, even if that means the Government providing the money either for an underpass of for a bridge over the line.

Mr. Snape

I am aware that the Ramblers Association has said that, but there are 100 such crossings on the east coast main line, which is the example that I gave. Is my hon. Friend saying that an alternative method of crossing should be provided for each and every one? If so, I must advise him—and Conservative Members before they intervene—that that is not a commitment that I should like to make on behalf of any future Labour Administration because it would be an unreal commitment.

Indeed, the Ramblers Association has gone further than my hon. Friend has suggested in connection with that line, and has stated that, if British Rail increases the speed on a line, it will also be reducing the safety on it. I do not see it like that, and I am sure that the nation as a whole would not either. If we were to take the Ramblers Association's argument to its logical conclusion, every train on the east coast main line would be preceded by a man on foot, carrying a red flag, in case someone wanted to walk in front of the train.

Mr. Bennett

Does my hon. Friend accept that, if British Rail has decided that only 13 of those crossings are unsafe, it therefore appears to believe that 87 are perfectly safe? Is that not an interesting observation? Surely, if only 13 of the 100 crossings are unsafe, it is not unreasonable for British Rail at least to propose alternative crossings at some of those points. I am sure that if British Rail had done that, the ramblers would have been prepared to compromise. They were upset because British Rail wanted to close 13 crossings as unsafe without offering to provide alternatives at any of them.

Mr. Snape

I am not here to defend British Rail's management decisions—I am usually better at condemning them—but during the passage of the legislation to which my hon. Friend referred earlier, British Rail stated that it had picked the least safe of the 100 crossings to which I have referred. From my discussions with British Rail, I know that it made specific proposals for the diversion of at least four of the crossings and that the Ramblers Association objected to them all. There must be some co-operation from both sides.

I do not think that British Rail should be given carte blanche to abolish rights of way on every railway track, but where train speeds and frequencies are as great as on the line to which I have referred, we must recognise that the combination of pedestrians and such high-speed trains is deadly. The evidence that proves just how deadly that combination can be is on my side. I hope that at a later stage we can persuade the Minister that a compromise is possible, feasible and affordable.

Opposition Members support clause 56, which seeks to make the directors and managers of British Rail personally liable for offences attributable to their neglect. In the aftermath of the Clapham disaster, I am sure that the House will agree that such a provision is both necessary and overdue.

We also welcome the provision in part III that removes the use of the private Bill procedure to obtain powers that could be granted by orders for harbours. I should, however, like the Minister to clarify the issue of rights of way in dock areas, where I do not think that many trains will be travelling at the high speed of 125 mph. Such orders are often made in connection with works. However, diversions or blockages of a right of way can be considered under the provisions of part I.

So far, we have achieved a degree of unanimity. Although we welcome the Bill, we shall subject it to detailed scrutiny in Committee. I give an undertaking, however, that we shall not attempt to delay its progress unduly. Both sides of the House could and should support most of its provisions, but where improvements are necessary we shall be pressing them on the Minister, and I hope that we shall receive as fair a hearing from him as I have tried to give his Bill this afternoon.

5.25 pm

Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch)

As this is a tightly drawn Bill, there is no opportunity of making a general speech on transport matters, and I have no intention of trying to abuse the procedures of the House by doing so. I welcome the presence on the Treasury Bench of my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, in addition to my hon. Friend the Minister for Shipping. I have rarely met two Ministers who take more trouble to carry out the duties of their ministerial office. The presence of my hon. Friend the Minister of State shows that he does not miss any opportunity to listen to his colleagues.

We are dealing with a time-honoured procedure. Those who have some knowledge of railway history will recall what was known in the last century and in the early years of this century as "the railway interest". One can only assume that, if the Bill had been introduced 70 or 80 years ago, the House would have been rather more crowded than today. Although I welcome the presence of my. hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) immediately in front of me, I should have welcomed equally the presence of the attractive blonde lady who was sitting in front of me last week, but she obviously has other things to do this week.

Although it is clear that the House welcomes the Bill, the provisions appear to have been drafted largely with British Rail in mind. Before I comment on the Bill in any detail, I must declare a possible future interest with British Rail in activities that are unrelated to my parliamentary duties. I say that more in hope than expectation, but one never knows.

My main concern about the Bill is its possible effect on some of our preserved railways. I am not sure, but I believe that I am the unpaid, unofficial "parliamentary friend" of the Association of Independent Railways Ltd. That body has not yet contacted me about the Bill although the Association of Railway Preservation Societies and David Morgan thereof certainly have. I should like to put to my hon. Friend the Minister one or two points which, due to his courtesy, I have been able to discuss with him briefly during the past few days. I hope that he will take on board some of the concerns that have been expressed to me.

Almost all the proprietors of the preserved railways are members of either the Association of Independent Railways or the Association of Railway Preservation Societies, and carried more than 6 million passengers on their railways in 1989, which is the latest year for which I have the full figures.

Like any other railway, a preserved railway normally requires statutory authority for its operations, which nowadays—until the Bill becomes law—is, in practice, enacted under a light railway order. It is likely that, in recent years, a majority of such orders have been sought by the preserved railways under the very procedures that are to be replaced by those laid down in the Bill. Thus, the Bill is of vital interest to those railways, and they are probably much more affected by it than the two earlier speeches have suggested.

If we are to look after the legitimate interests of the preserved railways, one or two changes need to be made to the Bill. The first is in connection with Scotland. Although there are no hon. Members from Scottish constituencies in their places at the moment, my hon. Friend the Minister made a passing reference to Scotland, which is one of the issues that I discussed with him the other evening.

The memorandum at the front of the Bill refers to ministerial orders in England and Wales, but schedule 4 shows that the whole of the Light Railways Acts 1896 and 1912 are to be repealed; so Scotland will find itself in an invidious position. My hon. Friend the Minister touched on the matter, but his interpretation was not one which I or the Scottish preserved railways share. He said that, if the Bill is passed unamended, the preserved railways in Scotland would have to be dealt with under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936. That is correct, but not satisfactory. Such an arrangement is potentially much more complex than the existing one. It would be a time-consuming and expensive procedure which required provisional orders under the Act.

It seems wrong that a few legitimate private railways in Scotland should be disadvantaged by the Bill. The only beneficiaries would probably be the lawyers. It is my impression that the Department of Transport has not so far been sympathetic to the potential plight of some of the preserved railways in Scotland. I should prefer to see the Bill amended so that the two Light Railways Acts were repealed only in England and Wales.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give serious consideration to that point. The Conservative party is not exactly in the ascendant in Scotland. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister, who has Scottish ancestry, that to upset large numbers of railway enthusiasts in Scotland would not be of additional help to the Conservative party north of the border. If that is special pleading, so be it.

The second point that worries me is also a minority concern. For some reason best know to those who drafted the Bill, line 23 of clause 60 says that a railway means a system of transport employing parallel rails which (b) form a track of a gauge of at least 350 millimetres. At least one narrow-gauge railway in Britain operates on a gauge of 10.5 in, and there may well be others. If those words are retained in the legislation, those railways would still require a light railway order at some time. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that he could simply delete that line of clause 60. I cannot see that it serves any useful purpose.

Everyone in the House welcomes the proposals in the Bill which relate to safety. I have considerable sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). He dispassionately and properly referred to the feelings of locomotive drivers.

They are people whom we rarely consider in this House, but when there is a suicide or accident on the railway, the driver, and his mate if appropriate, may be mentally scarred for life by the experience. It is surely incumbent on us to do everything possible to ensure that safety is paramount. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East made the simple proposal that it should be a criminal offence to take any alcohol if one is driving a train. I should certainly like to see the Bill amended to take care of that point.

In his few remarks on clause 56, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East assumed that it referred to British Rail. He talked about British Rail's management. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to imagine the effect of the Bill as it is presently drafted on the preserved and private railways. Such railways are manned mainly by volunteers. Clause 56 could put a terrific burden on the unremunerated directors or officers of a preserved railway. If a ganger was working on the track and was found to be over the limit, a director or manager could be found guilty of a criminal offence.

Will my hon. Friend the Minister allow me to bring a delegation from the Association of Railway Preservation Societies to discuss the matter and the other two matters that I have raised? It would make the association feel that it had had a better hearing if it saw the Minister face to face rather than pursuing the matter in correspondence.

Mr. McLoughlin

I give the undertaking that I will meet any delegation that my hon. Friend wishes to bring to me.

Mr. Adley

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I had no doubt that he would say that.

Railway safety is a big subject. It is just one illustration of the double standards that we have tolerated for generations that, for one and half centuries, the House has rightly imposed the strictest safety rules and regulations on the railways, while doing virtually nothing about the roads. The result is that we kill 5,000 people and maim a quarter of a million on our roads in the name of personal convenience. I have often thought that I should like to push through the House a simple single-clause Bill which would reduce death and injury at a stroke: it would be to insist that road traffic operated with signals in the same way as trains. That would save an awful lot of lives and make travelling by train a great deal more attractive and competitive.

I understand from a brief discussion that British Rail is reasonably happy with the Bill. I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) about the delays that could be inherent in the new system proposed by the Bill. None of us would want to find that, at the end of our work, we had produced a piece of legislation that increased the delay in obtaining the approval necessary to build new railways. My hon. Friend the Minister must pay attention to the point that has been made—that time limits must be set for, first, appointing an inspector and secondly, the production of the inspector's report once the inquiry is complete, if not necessarily on the length of the inquiry.

The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made several interventions—I was going to say on behalf of, but that sounds rude; in which he put the view of—the Ramblers Association. I share the view of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East that it does not make sense to go back to the days of the red flag, but we must find a compromise between the passenger's interest, which is the interest of the railways, and the pedestrian's interest. I say to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish and my hon. Friend the Minister that I do not see why British Rail, as ever, should be expected to bear the full cost. That simply illustrates yet again the inequality and double standard which we employ in the treatment of road versus rail.

If the Government of the day decide that a motorway is to be built and a footpath is to be built over the road, the cost of building a bridge or underpass is all part of the cost of building the motorway, and it is borne by the taxpayers. I see no earthly reason why we should shackle British Rail in providing a better service still in terms of safety and speed if it comes into conflict with those who want to walk across the line. We must find an equitable solution that does not put a yet greater financial burden on British Rail.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if he is as keen as I am to provide a level playing field for road and rail, he should recognise that, when motorways were built around Greater Manchester, of three footpaths that crossed the motorway, one was closed or diverted and bridges or underpasses were put in for the other two. That sort of compromise would be reasonable in dealing with footpaths that cross railways.

Mr. Adley

The hon. Member illustrates my argument —there are double standards. As he said, two of those motorway crossings were paid for by the taxpayer. I shall not pursue the matter further, as I have bored my Back-Bench and Front-Bench colleagues endlessly with it, but it is fair to say that there should be an equal playing field.

Talking of double standards, of road versus rail and the Bill, where footpaths are concerned we are talking about the removal of ancient obligations. British Rail has an ancient obligation to pay for its own police force. In this day and age, why should we expect that? Let us think of the cost that the police incur on all our behalfs by attending accidents. Think of the untold billions of pounds spent by the police on attending court cases dealing with so many facets of the internal combustion engine. However, nothing in the Bill would relieve British Rail of that burden, which costs in excess of £40 million a year.

I do not think I would be out of order in recalling a private conversation with the Secretary of State for Transport about a year ago on this subject. He said that he did not think that it was a high priority to ask the Home Secretary to take £40 million out of his budget and put it on to the Secretary of State for Transport's budget. He did not think that he would get away with it. It is a shame that the Bill does not deal with that matter.

Nor does it deal with the historical obligation for British Rail to maintain hundreds of listed buildings. It offered an opportunity to do so. Perhaps those matters may be attended to during the passage of the Bill.

Finally, clause 56 states: Where an offence under this Part committed by a body corporate is committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body, or a person purporting to act in such a capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall he guilty of the offence. We are prepared to clobber the ganger working on the Keighley and Worth Valley railway or his notional supervisor, or send him to prison. Meanwhile, large supermarkets are defying the law by opening on Sundays and abusing society in almost everything they do, but we are doing nothing about it. I should like clause 56 to be utilised to deal with the activities of many other organisations.

I welcome the Bill, I wish it a speedy passage and I hope that some of my suggestions will result in one or two minor changes in it.

5.41 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

I welcome the Bill, even though on the surface it hands considerable powers from Parliament to Ministers. I have spent too many hours on these Benches arguing on behalf of Bills, often at considerable length. I have meandered round all sorts of fairly obscure topics, just about pleasing the Chair by remaining in order, knowing that whatever I said it would not make the slightest difference to the outcome of the private Bill. Provided that I and my colleagues could keep going until 10 o'clock, the fate of the Bill would be decided by whether 98 hon. Members returned from dinner or 102. It was a pretty farcical procedure.

Mr. Snape

My hon. Friend is far too modest. We all know that what he terms his "meandering" round private Bills has been responsible for a good deal of heartache and not a little management time in British Rail spent trying to meet some of his objections. Those objections might not always have been covered by the Bill that we were discussing, but we understood his argument.

Mr. Bennett

I accept that, and I admit that there have been occasions when I and other hon. Members have blackmailed various organisations, including British Rail, with the amount of time that we would take in the House unless they did something to improve the position of our constituents.

It is high time that the private Bill procedure was reformed. However, we must be clear in our minds that we are dealing with substantial issues. We are considering the rights of individuals as against the rights of the state and of corporate bodies. We must also recognise that any changes that we make will almost certainly not satisfy people outside. I sometimes think that it would be almost impossible to satisfy them. If someone wants to put a nuclear power station, a new road or railway, a science park, a supermarket or even a public convenience at the bottom of one's garden, most people would not want it. However one designs the procedure—whether a parliamentary procedure or a public inquiry—the majority of poeple will think that it is unfair that it is being forced or inflicted on them.

The Bill will be a better way at least to convince people that they have an opportunity to influence events than the present private Bill procedure. We all know what is supposed to happen. The House debates a Bill on Second Reading and it is passed by chance rather than as a benefit of the arguments. Then the Bill goes to Committee. Four hon. Members are appointed—two from each side of the House—as well as the key appointment, the Chair, who has a casting vote. We all know that all sorts of manipulations take place during the appointment of the members of a Committee.

It always amazes me how Bills which the Government support end up with a Chairman from the Government side of the House, thus giving the Government a majority.

People argue and give evidence to the Committee, for perhaps 10 or 12 weeks or longer. In theory, everyone listens carefully to the evidence, but some of us know that the reality has much more to do with the political persuasion of hon. Members appointed to the Committee and to discussions that take place when they are debating.

It can be extremely frustrating for people who have to travel to London and face the expense of preparing a case —sometimes employing parliamentary counsel to put their case—knowing that decisions are not necessarily taken on the merits of the arguments but on political considerations.

Mr. Barry Field

I apologise for taking up the time of the House. I chaired the Committee that considered the London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill, which will improve the safety of a number of London underground stations when it takes effect, including Oxford circus, which several million commuters pass through every day. The Labour party, to which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) belongs, objected to that Bill and voted against it. Is he suggesting that, by wanting to improve safety in one of our biggest underground stations, I am a Government stooge?

Mr. Bennett

I am not suggesting that. However, various political considerations come into play with some Bills rather than their merits. Any hon. Member who does not understand that is relatively naive.

It is important that we discuss the new procedure. There may be problems and differences between the two sides of the House over the way in which we plan Britain, especially as we move into the next century. The Conservatives have a tendency to believe that planning decisions can be taken on the profit motive. Opposition Members believe that there should be more objective planning criteria.

Some of the measures that will come before us will have international or national significance and others will have regional or local significance. Under the Bill there will be problems deciding whether the matter has local or national significance. Perhaps I may pursue that in Committee.

Another question is whether Parliament should give its approval first before a public inquiry is held or whether Parliament should have a say after the inquiry. There is also the question of the evidence put to Parliament, and I want to take up those issues in Committee.

I press the Minister to consider carefully the order-making procedures. For most of my time in the House, I have been dissatisfied with them in the same way as I was dissatisfied with private Bills. I am dissatisfied with the way in which the House deals with secondary legislation. Whether it is affirmative orders for national schemes or negative orders for local schemes, the procedure is very unsatisfactory.

When hon. Members table an amendment to a Bill, it can concentrate the Minister's mind on a clause or section and occasionally hon. Members can be persuaded to force amendments on the Government. It is almost impossible to form a coalition of interests to get something changed in a statutory instrument or an order, so if there is broad agreement that an instrument is a good idea, one must either take it all or have nothing to do with it.

Mr. Cryer

Will my hon. Friend further agree, on that important issue, that it cannot be argued that there are no precedents of statutory instruments being subject to amendment? For example, orders relating to the census are subject to just that procedure.

Mr. Bennett

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I regularly argue with the Table Office that we can table amendments to Bills which make provision for orders that are amendable because of the census legislation. I cannot recall it precisely, but I believe that there is one other parliamentary precedent to that effect.

In Committee, the Minister invariably points out that Parliament has a simple way of dealing with orders and that we should stick to it. He points out that they are negative or affirmative orders and that the Standing Orders of the House lay down that such matters may be debated for an hour and a half after 10 o'clock.

Although we are now debating a piece of works legislation, it represents a major reform of parliamentary procedure, so I put down a marker at this stage to the effect that the Minister should be more forthcoming in considering whether we should have new procedures for dealing with orders. Such new procedures could allow for longer debates, perhaps in Committee, with the ability to amend regulations and with provision for an effective vote to take place in Committee.

It is nonsense for us to debate such matters in Committee for an hour and a half and then, at the end of the debate, we vote not on the merits of the matter but on whether it has been considered. A day or two later—whenever it suits the Government—the theoretical actual vote takes place on the Floor of the House and, if a Division is called, most hon. Members do not know what they are voting about.

On this occasion, because of the unique nature of the measure, we should be prepared to consider in Committee changing the way in which we deal with statutory instruments, enabling us to give them more adequate scrutiny. That is especially so at this time, when we are effectively handing from Parliament to Ministers the right to decide, on private Bills, to lay orders. That is a considerable sacrifice of parliamentary power. Although I accept that it is right for us to do that, a counterbalance should be a more effective way of scrutinising affirmative and negative orders.

Various organisations have lobbied me about the Bill. I join the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) in pointing out that the Inland Waterways Association believes that it was not sufficiently consulted on the Bill. That association is particularly concerned about a measure that is proceeding through the other place and the question whether it will be dropped and be replaced by the provisions relating to canals in this legislation. I hope that, when we come to that part of the Bill in Committee, the Minister will assure us that the association has been consulted and its fears allayed.

The fears of ramblers' associations about closures have been rehearsed. I appreciate everything that has been said about the need to maintain safety standards. We must be equally concerned about the effect of what we do on engine drivers. Historically, British Rail and its predecessors have argued to the House for certain railway lines to be built in a particular way. They argued at that time that pedestrian crossings of railways were perfectly safe.

For almost every railway line built by the different railway companies—permission for which was passed by the House in different eras—we laid down different procedures. It was common for some to build footpaths across the lines and in other cases bridges were built. Indeed, on some lines, bridges were built on almost all occasions. It should be possible to obtain a compromise which is effective in the legislation and which says, in effect, "There will be some crossings which are so rarely used that people are not inconvenienced by their closure." In other cases, a simple diversion, often involving the use of a private crossing that already belongs to British Rail, could be brought into use to enable people to cross in safety. In some instances it will be necessary to provide a bridge or underpass.

I am often upset when people approach British Rail on the safety issue and ask how much it would cost to do the job properly. The price quoted for a bridge or underpass is always horrendous. The old railway companies had almost Meccano kits for bridges which were built as standard in various places. They varied only according to whether the approach was from the right or left. If it was possible to do that in the past, it should be possible now for British Rail to design relatively cheap crossing facilities.

I appreciate that there are problems. In one instance, when a local authority was asked to approve a bridge, which could have been built relatively cheaply, the authority refused because, it said, the bridge must be suitable for use by the disabled. I appreciate the arguments that go on nowadays, but let us not forget that the old crossings were not suitable for the disabled, which is why, in the case to which I am referring, it seemed unnecessary for the authority to insist on a ramp being built. I hope that in Committee we can make some progress on that front.

I have received a set of objections from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It is concerned about the implications of the legislation on estuaries. I a m keen for the Bill to cover estuaries, in view of my experience with private Bills over the years. In the 1970s many local authority Bills were introduced dealing with issues such as procession clauses. More recently, we have had many railway Bills. I predict that, if we do not reform matters, we shall have introduced a large number of Bills dealing with estuaries.

There are power schemes and other proposed developments involving estuaries. That particularly applies to the Severn and the Mersey. There are schemes on hand for virtually every estuary in the country and it is important for the legislation to cover them. At the same time, we must have a proper national debate to see how many estuaries can be changed from being tidal areas, where there is extremely good feeding for birds, to areas which, in effect, become inland lakes.

That has significance nationally and internationally, especially if we reduce the facilities for large numbers of birds. We must ensure that there are proper safeguards in legislation. Although a scheme may appear local in nature and the amount of an estuary that it encloses or otherwise alters, we must take the national significance into account for breeding birds. I am worried by the enthusiasm of some of my constituents for the Bengal tiger and rare species in various parts of the world, while tending to disregard animals in our local habitats. I hope that we can deal with that, too, in Committee.

We must look carefully at environmental statements which accompany orders flowing from the legislation. I appeal to the Minister to give at least some consideration to how far the environmental statement should come from a neutral source rather than from the promoters. Although promoters may employ reputable consultants, it is difficult for a consultant to a project to put all the disadvantages from the environmental point of view as thoroughly and firmly as would be done by a totally neutral person. I urge the Minister to bear that in mind.

Many attempts have been made in the House to reform the private Bill procedure and many of them have collapsed because it has always been easier for a private measure to be introduced. We must do all we can in the coming few years to block any parliamentary private Bill which could as easily be dealt with through this legislation. It is a question for the Court of Referees, and it will be a matter for the House.

I would have hoped that the Minister might have spelt out more clearly the fact that he would not expect any more private works Bills to be introduced. We have had 23 this year, of which 13 or 14 have been works Bills. They may go through, but I hope that he will make it clear that, in the next Session of Parliament, this legislation will apply, and anybody considering introducing a works Bill will do so through this legislation and not as a private measure.

I hope that we shall have a useful Committee stage in which many of the points that I have made can be answered.

5.59 pm

Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight)

No mention of private Bills would be complete without paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) for the way in which he chaired the Committee which sought to untangle this web. His knowledge and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) is considerable. I also pay tribute to Mr. Willoughby and the staff of the Private Bill Office, whose courtesy is unfailing. They have assisted many hon. Members, including myself, in fathoming the difficult procedure.

No mention of private Bill procedure would be complete without mentioning the Dartford warbler. It is always endangered and turns up whenever we discuss a private Bill. Whether it is the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill or the Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill, the Dartford warbler is always certain to be nesting in the middle of the projected works. If we ever want to save endangered species, the private Bill procedure may be one way to ensure that they are more plentiful.

The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) assured me that a Labour Secretary of State would be bound by the timetable that he proposes for public Bill procedures. However, the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill took 41 hours to be discussed in the Chamber and 86 hours on 24 days, spread over five months, to be discussed in Committee. After several weeks, the Committee's proceedings were suspended because a Labour Member departed from the Committee. As Chairman of Ways and Means, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, attempted to resolve the situation and eventually you made history in the House by deciding that the Committee would be quorate with just two members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. As I recall, the Chairman of Ways and Means did not attempt to resolve this situation—he did so.

Mr. Field

Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you did so most expeditiously. I would not be so ungallant as to doubt the word of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East today, but given the pressure that Labour Members placed on that Bill, a serious question mark would hang over any Labour Secretary of State who did not give way to pressure regarding the timetabling of a public inquiry procedure and who did not take some time to allow the result to be published or deliberated on.

Mr. Snape

I was beginning to fear that the preamble to the hon. Gentleman's speech was part of the delaying tactic that he denounces. I made a couple of moderately long speeches on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, but we are not discussing existing procedure. The undertaking that I gave refers to the Bill before us. It refers not to truncating the inquiry but to the timescale before appointing an inspector and publishing the report. I can only give an undertaking and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept it in the spirit in which it is given. I hope that he will also accept that Conservative Members have used the existing procedure to delay legislation which they have disliked over the years, which is why we want to change it.

Mr. Field

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it would not be the first inspector's decision that took some time to see the light of day once it had been referred to a Department. That was the point that I was trying to make.

I have been in the House for only a short time, but since I have been here I have been involved in a number of private Bills. The Isle of Wight Bill was my alma mater. Because of the activities of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) in holding it up, I eventually became the wrecker of every other private Bill. It always amuses me when Liberal Democrats accuse me of having a ministerial career. If only they had seen the correspondence that flowed to party chairmen from "Horrified of the Home Counties" when some of those Bills hit the deck; one example was the correspondence from the lighthouse keepers association. Some of my colleagues, even to this day, hardly speak to me because of how their Bills were delayed. With your wonderful knowledge of the Bible, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you produced the Lazarus motion which revived them all from the dead and they eventually passed on their way through the House.

I also served on the Committee considering the London Local Authority Bill which was, remarkably, opposed by the ice-cream alliance when the SDP and the Liberal Democrats were in a state of meltdown. That Bill abused the rights of individuals to object to private Bills. London local authorities had delayed hearing petitioners' cases and put them to considerable inconvenience.

In July 1990, I chaired the Committee on the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, which subsequently passed into the trust ports legislation, about which I hope we shall hear more before the end of the year. Recently, I chaired the Committee on the London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill, to which there were some 56 petitioners. We resolved the situation and the Bill was out of Committee within two weeks, so the fact that there are many petitioners or objectors to private legislation does not always delay it.

For more than three centuries, large-scale projects of public significance, such as the building of railways, the construction of bridges, and the regulation and construction of ports, have required the authority of an Act of Parliament. The sanctioning of transport infrastructure, central to the development of national commerce and industry, requires the careful balancing of national and local needs, environmental issues and the interests of the private individuals affected. It has long been recognised that Parliament is the ultimate planning authority best suited to deal with such issues.

There are important constitutional aspects to the Bill. We are transferring substantial power to the Executive and taking away from Back Benchers a power to make decisions, as Committee members, that affect people's lives. The ability and right of hon. Members to legislate on behalf of individual citizens is important. I am worried that the desire for an easy life could lie behind the Bill. Those of us who remember the late-night sittings associated with the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill will remember how difficult the parliamentary timetable was.

Anyone who suggests that public inquiries are a speedy way to resolve matters worries me. Planning inspectors who reach speedy decisions ar rarer than rocking horse manure. As a device for speeding up matters, the Bill seriously concerns me. If the Crossrail Bill currently before the House were the subject of a public inquiry, I wonder how long it would take. The channel tunnel and Winchester bypass legislation are examples of how public inquiries go on and on. I wonder why we have put our faith in public inquiries in this Bill, especially given that the Government have been so pleased with the result of some of the private Bill procedure.

The other day, Commissioner Ripa di Meana said that one reason why he took action in this country was the amount of correspondence that he receives from the United Kingdom compared with any other EC state. The attention that this country pays to those matters is one reason why it takes so long to resolve them in public inquiries.

I am pleased that marinas are included in the Bill. In Ventnor in my constituency, we had a proposal for a marina. Half the population thought that I had a magic parliamentary wand and the other half thought that I was fully in agreement with it, because, knowing private parliamentary procedure as I did, I realised that it would take at least 18 months to two years to come to fruition. They interpreted my rather laid-back approach as an indication that I agreed with the marina, and did not realise that I would not be allowed to take part in the debate.

The Bill allows for guided transport schemes. Will that include buses of the type that are used on the continent? They travel on guided tracks and switch from diesel power to electrical power which allows the bus to be driverless. We shall see more of that sort of transport in the United Kingdom and certainly it is much better for the environment of cities. I hope that the Bill takes cognisance of such future developments.

Clause 7 deals with redundant transport facilities and mentions military installations. Will the clause affect the redundant Victorian piers on our shores? If it does, it will be welcomed in many seaside towns with rather decrepit

structures. A long time ago, I asked the Civil Aviation Authority whether it tested its air traffic controllers for drugs or alcohol and I was told that it did not. As I say, I asked a long time ago and I am open to correction.

Mr. Adley

My hon. Friend's mention of clause 7 prompts me to pick up a point that did not occur to me before. My hon. Friend will be familiar with the piers of the former Fort Augustus railway in the highlands. Because of the Bill's effect on Scotland, at what stage could somebody who did not like the piers in the middle of the river use clause 7 in a way which I am sure nobody could have intended?

Mr. Field

Whether intended or not, I hope that they do and that the Minister will offer some comfort on that. Many seaside resorts are fed up with the state of their piers and the Isle of Wight is no exception. We would like a procedure to resolve that so as to make our sea fronts more presentable. I hope that the clause encompasses such structures.

I was speaking about the fact that the CAA does not test its air traffic controllers for drugs or alcohol. That seems remarkable—if it is still the case. We now rightly propose to test train drivers for drugs and alcohol, but it seems that air traffic controllers are not tested. If that is correct, perhaps we could extend the Bill's provisions to include such testing. The Minister will appreciate that it is an important matter, although I do not say for a moment that air traffic controllers suffer from problems of alcohol or drugs. Many companies now adopt such test procedures. Esso tests its bowser drivers and merchant naval officers. This is a suitable area for extension.

Mr. McLoughlin

I can help my hon. Friend on this. Under the Air Navigation Order 1989, it is an offence for air crew to be under the influence of drink or drugs. From 1 October 1991 air traffic controllers have been subject to the same requirements as air crew. I hope that answers my hon. Friend's point. We shall consider the matter to see if further legislation is needed.

Mr. Field

My hon. Friend has given me a full answer, and I am pleased to note it.

Will the harbour orders cope with the fact that for some time the Royal Navy has been trying to give up its Solent navigational and harbour duties outside the Queen's harbour jurisdiction? I do not know whether the Royal Navy is on the record about that. It is extraordinary that the Navy is responsible not only for the eastern part of the Solent but for the navigational aids in that area. I have often asked the Secretary of State for Defence about what defence purpose that fulfils. Jurisdiction over Wootton creek on the Isle of Wight by the Queen's harbourmaster seems arcane in this day and age. In that respect, will the harbour orders serve a useful purpose?

For some time I have felt that there is an air of Government morality in the private Bill procedure. The Government have worked wonders in rolling back the areas of state ownership and have returned hundreds of valuable assets to the efficient control of private enterprise for the benefit of customers and shareholders. They have not fulfilled all their duties towards those companies, which are required always to jump the hoop of the private Bill procedure. I welcome the fact that recently the Government have been taking over some private Bills, such as the trust ports legislation, and they took over the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.

I hope that the Bill will be a natural precursor and will pave the way for the easier privatisation of British Rail in which, as the Minister knows, I take a deep interest. I even found a purchaser for British Rail's interests in the Isle of Wight. To my consternation, I was held up over that, but it has always been the case that where I lead others will follow tomorrow. I hope that I may soon take the Government with me and that the legislation will enable privatisation of British Rail to proceed much more quickly.

I remain concerned about the speed of public inquiries and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that. If he cannot do so now, perhaps he will deal with it in Committee. Otherwise, I welcome the Bill's principles.

6.16 pm

Mr. Ronnie Fearn (Southport)

Most hon. Members seem to agree that the principles for approving transport projects are antiquated and in great need of reform. I welcome the principle of clause 1, which lays down new procedures for the consideration of transport schemes. Whether it will continue to have my support depends on Government or Opposition amendments in Committee.

I am concerned about some parts of the Bill. When any new transport infrastructure is proposed, conflicts of interest between those affected by the scheme and the need for the infrastructure are difficult to reconcile. Although I accept that the private Bill procedure has not proved to be competent in resolving such conflicts, I am not yet convinced that the public inquiry procedure and our system of compensation are any better.

The Bill gives little detail about the new procedures and leaves much of the process to be decided by rules issued by the Secretary of State. The amount of discretionary power that the Bill gives the Secretary of State is quite wide, and in some areas that is a matter for concern. For instance, clause 9(6) deals with schemes which in the opinion of the Secretary of State are of national significance". The Bill does not set out the criteria to be used by the Secretary of State when exercising his powers to decide what is of national significance. The national interest and what is of national significance are far too important to be left to the opinion of the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that in his winding-up speech. I hope to have an opportunity to clarify that point in Committee and to define on the face of the Bill the specifications which constitute a scheme of national significance.

I share the concern of the Council for the Protection of Rural England that clause 9 appears to provide for parliamentary authorisation for the principle of a scheme before a public inquiry is held. This is in contradition both with the recommendations of the Joint Committee and with the Department of Transport draft paper.

We cannot tell from the Bill whether the order to be presented to Parliament will be accompanied by an environmental statement. Hon. Members will not be able to make a proper judgment about a transport scheme unless they are aware of the impact that its proposals will have on the environment. I was pleased to hear the Minister's reassurances at the beginning of the debate on that matter.

However, I was surprised that a Bill such as this, which has the potential to create an explosion in the number of transport projects and wreak havoc with the environment, contains so little about the protection of the environment. The Government's continuing argument with the European Commission about the environmental impact assessments of the east London crossing and the Winchester bypass—the latter has already been mentioned —are examples of their lack of commitment in this respect. The Government should take the opportunity of the passage of a Bill such as this to make a clear statement about their objectives on environmental issues.

If the procedures set out in clause 9 are not reversed, the clause will limit the terms of reference of any inquiry and may prevent consideration of alternative schemes. It may also hamper legitimate and important objections, particularly if they raise issues of principle. Under the present procedure, a Select Committee can reject a scheme after investigation, whereas in the proposed procedures, the outcome of the public inquiry will be limited to modifications of the scheme rather than outright objection. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

Before giving full approval to part I, I shall be looking to ensure that the right for members of the public and their representatives to be heard is not diminished by the proposals. Those who can demonstrate an interest, including amenity bodies, must be ensured of a full hearing. The Bill must set out clearly the conditions within which a public inquiry will be held, the consultation process and the rights of third parties. Only then can we be sure that the powers in the Bill will not be used to ride roughshod over the wishes of local people and the public at large.

I do not see any new procedures working without a clear statement from the Government setting out a coherent transport strategy. The removal of the decision-making process from Parliament to the hands of local government and public inquiries may be welcome, but it must be accompanied by a transport strategy and that we do not see here. The decision-making bodies must have a framework within which they can work, confident that their decisions will be upheld.

Our transport systems have suffered from lack of investment, lack of direction and short-term piecemeal decisions without a clear and coherent policy. The Bill could plunge us deeper into the mire by an explosion in the number of projects for light supertram systems, built for their entrepreneurial opportunities rather than in the interests of the community.

The Bill is an enabling Bill. Its powers are permissive rather than mandatory. The Secretary of State is the one who blows the whistle. The interpretation and application of the Bill may reflect the ideologies of a Secretary of State rather than the transport and environmental needs of the country. The Bill must be seen in the light of the Government's desire to give free rein to the market economy and to privatise the railways and any other form of public transport. Some of the clauses in part I should be amended to clarify the proposed procedures and make them more specific. I hope that the Secretary of State will make draft rules available to the Committee before we start our proceedings.

Part II, which provides for safety on rail and other guided transport systems, has my full support. Some clauses may require amending, or will at least be the subject of much discussion. These are the clauses pertaining to the permitted levels of alcohol and to the procedures of evidence. Some of the discretionary powers of the Secretary of State should perhaps be amended to place a duty on him, but that will be a matter for the Committee.

Another subject that will require attention is the stopping up and diverting of public footpaths and bridleways in the interest of safety. As the Bill stands, there will be no requirement on British Rail to provide alternative means of access. That is a cause of concern to the Ramblers Association, the Open Spaces Society and other groups. Judging from what I have heard, other hon. Members will, like me, be seeking assurances that the provisions will not seriously reduce access to the extent that it affects the quality of life, particularly for the elderly, infirm or disabled. Near Southport is what people call the "devil's crossing". To my knowledge, at least three people have been killed there and I have heard that it may be as many as six, so we need a safety provision that will satisfy the Ramblers Association and others who have complained about it.

On the whole, I expect part II to be given a smooth passage through all its stages. However, I stress that I do not see the safety measures taking the place of more effective means of making our transport system safe. The criminalisation of public transport drivers may be necessary, but it should not deter us from insisting on adequate investment to introduce other measures which may provide a greater guarantee of safety. For example, the introduction of automatic train protection to stop drivers going through a red light is probably a more effective measure. The Clapham and King's Cross disasters arose from under-investment and overworked staff, not irresponsible drivers.

I and my party are in full agreement with the principle behind the Bill. We have reservations about part I, but these could be partly dispelled if the Government would announce a clear and coherent transport strategy.

I hope that the Minister will answer one question for me. Once the proposed procedures are in place, what role will the Secretary of State for the Environment play in transport matters? He is the Minister responsible for local government, where many of the decisions will be taken. The recent transfer of the docklands light railway from London Transport to the London docklands development corporation has brought that system within his sphere. His plans for the development of the east Thames corridor will, I am sure, encompass various transport schemes, including the channel tunnel. Given all this, will the Minister clarify who is to have ultimate responsibility for transport matters? Will he clearly spell out the lines of responsibility, and where they lie?

6.26 pm

Mr. Alan Amos (Hexham)

I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister for Shipping on bringing forward this much-needed and sensible measure. The Bill will improve the way in which transport schemes are dealt with, while reducing the burden on Parliament and thereby enabling it to concentrate its time on those matters which are more properly its responsibility.

Part I provides a much better system, by which railways, tramways, other guided transport schemes and canal works can be approved by ministerial order instead of, as at present, by a private Bill. The order will give all the necessary and specific authority, including compulsory purchase and planning permission. It implements the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure and will reduce the number of private Bills by an estimated half. Replacing private Bills in this way will play an important part in the Government's wider plans to release more time and reform the grossly inefficient and antediluvian way in which Parliament conducts its business in the last decade of the 20th century.

The growth in the number of private Bills relating to rail and light rail projects, together with a much greater interest in, and highly organised support for and opposition to, such schemes has meant that the burden on Parliament has become intolerable, while the time taken to process the applications has dramatically increased. This is not in the interest of Parliament, the promoters of private Bills or those affected by the planned developments. In the last Session, 23 of the 28 private Bills dealt with transport or transport-related matters and took on average 19 months to receive Royal Assent.

Any proposal to speed up this process is to be warmly welcomed, particularly given the escalating construction costs of those much-needed projects, which are frequently delayed in the House not by reasoned and constructive debate but by filibustering designed to block the whole project and kill the Bill—a ploy that can succeed unless 100 Members happen to be available to support a clause. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) referred to this earlier on.

It is wrong that procedures should be allowed to get in the way of improving our transport infrastructure. The job of Parliament is to remove as many unnecessary obstacles as possible to the ability of private and public enterprise to undertake capital projects. As the Joint Committee rightly said: Private Bills are not in the opinion of the Committee an appropriate system for authorising works of purely local significance. The Committee would regard the transfer of power from Parliament in these cases not as a substantial constitutional shift, but as a logical step in a pattern of historical development and a necessary response to modern requirements. Sensibly and neatly, the Bill makes the distinction between local and national schemes. Those that are of essentially local importance will henceforth be authorised by means of a local public inquiry rather than detailed scrutiny by Members. These schemes will inevitably be speeded up considerably. For those projects of strategic and/or national importance, Parliament will properly have an opportunity to debate and approve the principles and policy involved before the scheme goes for detailed scrutiny to a local inquiry. In that way, due weight can be given by the inquiry to the wider implications of the scheme.

There must be a suitable balance between national and local interests, but it cannot be acceptable that very localised concerns should prevent a major strategic project from proceeding as soon as possible. If public funds are responsible for the construction costs, the wider public have the right to expect that their interests are given due account. But even private sector promoters are entitled to have the wider national benefits of their schemes given maximum weight.

Part II deals with important safety measures, including new police powers to test drivers and other persons working on the railways for drink and drugs. The measures are to be warmly welcomed. I hope that the proposals, which have been both warmly and widely welcomed within and outside the railway industry, will go through the parliamentary process unopposed.

Also to be welcomed are the new powers for the Secretary of State to approve the safety standards of new works, plant and equipment, and to require more reports on accidents and occurrences. The amendment of the safety regulations to ensure that all serious incidents are reported to the railway inspectorate, whether an accident occurs or not, will implement recommendations of the Fennell and Hidden reports. The drafting will cover existing and anticipated forms of transport, and it is a sensible piece of foresight. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me what other forms of transport he might be anticipating. As I have said, it is sensible to include such foresight in the Bill in a technological age.

I am especially pleased to see that the Bill will give the police new powers to allow them to breathalyse train and tram operators where there is even a suspicion of an offence, or after an accident. The powers will extend to include all those whose job involves controlling the movement of a vehicle, such as level crossing keepers, as well as guards and drivers.

Train drivers are responsible for far more passengers than car drivers, so the effects of alcohol and/or other drugs on their actions are correspondingly more serious. I agree, therefore, with the British Medical Association that the Bill should require a zero level of blood alcohol for those driving or involved in the operation of railways, trams, and other means of guided transport. I support random breath testing for car drivers, and to be logical and consistent, I should like to see that approach extended to those who are involved in the operation of rail systems.

It is important also to ensure that there will be adequate special training for the British Transport police to enable them to use breath-testing equipment properly in accordance with their duties under clause 30. I am sure that that is something to which my hon. Friend the Minister will be giving attention.

Safety is and will remain British Rail's highest priority. Investment in safety last year was £140 million, and it will reach £330 million over the next three years. All new and recently built trains are being fitted with black box recorders, and pilot tests of automatic train protection equipment are to begin shortly.

The Government have rightly made it clear to British Rail that high standards of safety must remain its top priority. All the recommendations of the Hidden report on the Clapham junction accident, which were published in November 1989, either have been or are being implemented. New procedures have been introduced for wiring and testing signals, staff training has been reviewed and procedures for dealing with emergencies have been updated. A further 24 measures are in the pipeline, and two are for later implementation. British Rail's external financing limit for 1990–91 was raised to £700 million in July 1990—an increase of over £100 million—to pay for safety measures.

British Rail has taken many initiatives which demonstrate its commitment to safety. For example, all staff have been issued with a safety policy statement, and last February a safety plan was published. The fitting of black box data recorders has now begun, as has that of cab radios, together with automatic train protection, a device that is designed to prevent a train from passing a signal at danger and to control a train's speed if the driver does not. Two pilot schemes are now being tested on the Chiltern line and on the Paddington-Bristol line.

In conclusion—

Mr. Cryer

Who wrote this?

Mr. Amos

I did, this morning, and I wrote it in great detail.

Although road projects are already catered for by the planning and public inquiry system, this is a good opportunity to urge the taking of action to speed up pre-construction procedures for road improvement, which already tend to be slower than the existing procedures for railways. Many of the delays occur when the Department of Transport is considering the next stage—for example, at the conclusion of public consultation or after a public inquiry.

Gestation periods of 20 years or more are common for major road schemes in Britain, and not only major motorway schemes such as the M40 extension from Oxford to Birmingham, the M3 Winchester bypass and the M20 missing link from Maidstone to Ashford. I shall not pursue that, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know that you would rule me out of order. I have made the point, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister has noted it.

The Bill is a good, sensible and useful measure, and I wish it a speedy passage.

6.36 pm

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

I rise with some pleasure because I dare say that I am the only hon. Member who for many years past has had the pleasure of obtaining a light railway order and transfer order to transfer the powers of the Light Railways Act 1896, as amended by the Light Railways Act 1912, to apply to the five-mile Keighley and Worth Valley light railway in west Yorkshire. I am the owner of five shares, which have never received a dividend. They were part of the £3,500 capital with which the venture was started. That is when the railway was transferred to the Keighley and Worth Valley light railway.

The procedures under which powers were obtained to run what was a standard-guage standard railway for the purpose of a light railway operation proved to be flexible and reasonable. They ensured that there were proper and adequate standards of operation. The fact that amateurs run many light railways does not detract from the need to ensure that they have the highest standards of operation, which is commensurate with public safety. Light railways have proved that they have been able to meet those standards. The Keighley and Worth Valley light railway has been a tremendous success. When it was started, many potential critics thought that it would go bankrupt in a year or two.

I seek an assurance from the Minister that the new legislation will not prevent access and flexibility through the repeal of existing legislation. The Light Railways Acts 1896 and 1912 are both to be repealed by the appropriate schedule to the Bill and I am not too happy that that legislation should be replaced by a series of orders.

We recognise that the private Bill procedure has been unsatisfactory, and dissatisfaction has been stimulated by the way in which the Government have abused the procedure, and by little else. We must ensure that it is replaced by a good system and that we do not succumb to the temptation merely to hand over order-making powers to the Minister so that Parliament is reduced to a legislative sausage machine in which there is no scrutiny of legislation.

Nearly all orders are subject to the negative procedure, which means that a prayer has to be tabled to ensure that an order is considered. The procedures for ensuring that prayers are debated are less than adequate and Parliament does not scrutinise delegated legislation in an adequate fashion. It is a matter of concern, therefore, that so many powers should be allocated to the Minister.

All the procedures are negative, with the exception of those relating to the powers in clauses 9 and 39 on alcohol limits, which are exercised by the affirmative procedure and require a resolution of the House to gain approval of the instrument.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, the maximum debating time permitted for an affirmative order is one and a half hours and no amendments are allowed except for a tiny class of instruments. There is no reason why the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments could not consider a new orders procedure that would allow amendments to be produced and for debate to extend beyond the usual one and a half hours when such legislation is considered in Standing Committee.

The Bill provides an opportunity to introduce far better procedures than are now available. I say that in the knowledge that the number of instruments considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments in 1978–79 was 794, and that in 1979–80, in the first Session of a new Government who were meant to take legislation off our backs, the number was 1,800. In 1980–81, the figure dropped to 1,225; in 1981–82, to 1,076; and in 1982–83, to 786. That latter figure was markedly lower because it was a general election year.

In 1987–88, the number of statutory instruments shot up to 1,947; in 1988–89, to 1,380; in 1989–90, to 1,457; and in 1990–91, to 1,366. That is an enormous number. In one two-year period, 260 were reported by the Joint Committee or Select Committee as being defective in some way.

I am concerned that clauses 6, 7 and 10 allow powers to be exercisable by statutory instrument. Where the negative procedure is invoked in respect of other clauses, that is mentioned. I hope that the Minister is noting my comments, because these important points need answering. Clauses 6, 7 and 10 state that the powers that they confer shall be exercisable by statutory instrument", but the procedure is not defined. That is the draftsman's way of saying that the Secretary of State is being given powers to make a statutory instrument that he is not even required to put before Parliament.

That is a legislative disgrace.

If my interpretation is correct, the Minister should come clean. He should make it clear whether that is the case, or whether the fact that the Bill does not state that clauses 6, 7 and 10 shall be subject to annulment is an omission or oversight. That requirement is stated in all the other clauses where order-making powers are listed.

Too often in primary legislation, Ministers are given excessive powers. Those included in clause 6 embrace all forms of application for orders under the Bill's general provisions, the rules that apply in respect of any such application, and the fees payable. Therefore, the Secretary of State appears to be giving himself money-making or money-raising powers without any parliamentary accountability being required.

Clauses 6 and 46 give the Secretary of State the power to make directions, but they are not defined in the Bill. Do they have to be in writing? Will they be published? If so, where? Under the other application procedures, reference is made to the London Gazette. If we are to shift a system away from Parliament and the private Bill procedure, we should retain at least some element of occasional parliamentary scrutiny.

Clause 48, which follows on the failure of British Rail's Bill on the closure of rail crossings, allows a Minister to close a railway crossing by order. Although it is true that the clause stipulates certain criteria, I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish in arguing that there must be cases where the Government could provide a little money to make crossings safer, or to provide bridges to enable pedestrian access.

The railways were built under powers granted by the House which provided for access across railways, and that provision for access should be honoured rather than removed by ministerial fiat.

Under clause 24, applications can also be dealt with by appointed persons. The Secretary of State is given the authority to appoint persons to exercise powers given by the Bill—which makes it clear that officers of the Department of Transport, Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office will be permitted to carry out the duties of the Secretary of State.

Many years ago, Thomas Dugdale established an honourable precedent: everyone thought that he was a wonderful man for resigning over the Crichel Down issue, in which he was not directly involved. That precedent has long disappeared. Today, we had the example of the Home Secretary coming to the House to say that he is appealing against a judgment which found him guilty of contempt of court.

If the Secretary of State is to have powers to give civil servants the power to exercise primary legislation, it must be made absolutely clear that the Secretary of State will take responsibility for their actions without qualification and that there will be no shrugging off of responsibility for accidents or errors because something happened to be done by a civil servant. In view of recent examples, we must ask the Minister to make it clear where responsibility will lie in such cases.

The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) expressed concern that there had been no consultation with organisations representing the interests of waterways and said that it was understood that they would not be included in the Bill. The Minister replied that consultation was continuing, but that is not very satisfactory. We want an assurance that the Minister is prepared to meet delegations from the waterways industry as and when necessary—and that, if they can make a strong enough case, he will table amendments in Committee.

There is agreement in all parts of the House on clause 39 and the affirmative procedure in respect of prescribing alcohol and drug limits, but let there be proper standards across the board. The Government should examine, for example, proper ways of dealing with alcohol abuse, which is a serious national problem. In Bradford, an important hospital, Scalebor Park, was closed, with the result that there are no facilities in Bradford now to treat people suffering from alcohol abuse.

It is not enough to impose punishments or to increase penalties. They may be necessary, but alcohol is a disease of society. Let us see Government action in curbing advertisements and the glamourising of alcohol. Consider the cheating that goes on when sporting events are televised and huge placards advertising alcohol can be seen in the background. All that should stop.

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?

Mr. Cryer

I would rather not, because I know that the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) hopes to contribute to the debate and I do not wish to prolong my remarks.

I hope that the Minister will give positive replies to the points that have been made. I welcome the Bill in principle, but I remain cautious about its detailed application.

6.48 pm

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)

I appreciate the courtesy of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). I also appreciated listening to his experiences as the director of a successful privatised railway company. I hope that we shall soon hear him advocating the extension of that privilege to many more people throughout the country.

I welcome the support that has been given to the Bill by all the parties and the constructive, co-operative approach that has been adopted. I say that as one who sat for what seemed like endless months on the Joint Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure under the excellent chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson). That co-operative approach is warmly welcomed.

The Committee agonised for a long time over whether to adopt this radical approach to the transfer of public works Bills out of parliamentary procedures and into the planning procedures. It was not an easy conclusion to reach. We heard representations from many interested parties. I believe that the Committee reached the right decision and that that view is now being endorsed by the reaction of all the parties and, generally speaking, by outside bodies.

It is a historic decision. The fact that it is being debated in a spirit of co-operation and amity does not mean that it is any the less decisive. A system that has grown up over the centuries is to be changed. The way in which public works of this sort are to be considered during the next century is to be decided by this legislation—if, indeed, to sound a note of caution, it reaches the statute book this Session. I welcome the Bill's early arrival this Session, but who knows what other events might occur to truncate our legislative programme?

I very much hope that the Bill reaches the statute book. It provides a much more efficient and fairer system for dealing public works matters. It cannot be right that decisions on motorways which carved up the countryside were taken by inspectors at public inquiries and by the Secretary of State while the house spent hours and hours debating very small matters such as minor railway diversions and even footpaths. It was an illogical system. The one that we propose is much more logical. It will treat railways—we hope that there will be more of them—as we have treated roads. If one can be dealt with seriously, sensibly and fairly under the planning procedures, I believe that the same logic should be applied to railway projects and, for that matter, to ports. Moreover, the public would regard it as logical.

I believe, too, that it is fairer. Like many hon. Members, I have served on many private Bills, but I have never been completely satisfied that it is a fair system. Hon. Members often enjoy taking part, but the system is not always fair to petitioners and promoters. I have sat on Committees that considered Bills at great expense, only for them to return to the Chamber and be defeated by what we, as parliamentarians, believe to be legitimate tactics. However, is it fair to use what is a quasi-judicial system as a means for indulging in parliamentary tricks that should be reserved for public Bills? We have some way to go yet in tightening up the procedures for all private Bills so that they receive fair treatment at all stages.

My hon. Friend the Minister should clarify—not necessarily today, but at some stage—the criteria that will be used to determine what is a matter of national significance. It may be impossible to specify that in legislation, but guidelines should be provided.

I had intended to ask about the Bill's impact on the biggest issue of national significance that will come before us—the high-speed rail link. We need to know whether it will be dealt with under this procedure, as a matter of national significance, or under the private Bill procedure as it stands, which it might well have to do, or whether it will be dealt with under the hybrid Bill procedure, in which case all the rules and dangers of that procedure will apply.

It is vital that we should be told soon what procedure will be adopted for that scheme. The success or failure of the high-speed link will be determined by the procedures that are adopted. If it is the hybrid Bill procedure or the private Bill procedure, the scheme could be delayed for several years, and I am anxious that that should not happen.

I think that we should all give a warm welcome to the Bill. I hope that it reaches the statute book soon. We must endeavour to get it through Parliament as quickly as we can so that it is not endangered by a general election. I share the wish that public works coming forward for consideration next year should be dealt with under the new procedure, not under our outdated and inadequate procedure.

6.54 pm

Mr. McLoughlin

Unfortunately, I shall not have time to deal with many of the points that have been made in the debate, but I shall endeavour to deal with specific points in Committee.

For obvious reasons, the House has given a warm welcome to the Bill. Some of my hon. Friends referred to the interesting and not so interesting debates that have taken place throughout the past few years on a number of private Bills. It is right, therefore, to try to devise an appropriate procedure to ensure that Bills which go through all their parliamentary stages are not prevented from reaching the statute book late in the day.

A number of hon. Members consider that time limits should be imposed on public inquiries. We shall have to consider that issue in Committee. Some difficulties may be encountered, however, over imposing strict time limits on how long the Secretary of State may have to consider inspectors' reports.

My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) made an important point regarding how schemes of national significance are to be decided. He referred to the high-speed rail link. If it were to come under this procedure, it would be regarded as a matter of national significance and would be debated in the House.

The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) wants us to adopt criteria. We believe that the criteria may be too inflexible. The Secretary of State will decide each case on its merits and expects only the biggest schemes to be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny. The Secretary of State needs to be flexible, but schemes that are regarded as of great national importance will have to come automatically before the House.

A meeting is being arranged regarding inland waterways. The Bill will have no effect whatever on the Bill that is now in the other place. That should not cause problems for hon. Members.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Does the Minister accept that the fear is that this Bill duplicates some of the provisions of the Bill now being considered in the other place? Will the Minister agree to meet those concerned before the Bill is considered in Committee so that time can be saved?

Mr. McLoughlin

I very much hope that we can set up a meeting as quickly as possible. It would obviously be practicable to do so before the Bill reaches Committee.

Many references were made to whether we should or should not close public footpaths. That is an important issue. We believe, however, that that is best left to the discretion of local public inquiries. I was grateful for what the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East said. I do not believe that every time a public right of way or public footpath is proposed to be closed it should be necessary to come to the House for approval. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who has great experience of private Bills and other private legislation procedures, amply illustrated the need for the Bill.

I am glad that the Bill has received a generally warm reception. We shall have to discuss a number of issues in Committee, but I believe that all hon. Members wish the Bill to make progress. However, progress must not be made at the expense of getting the legislation wrong. It is important that the legislation can be adapted to meet the many needs that are catered for in private Bills. The aim is not necessarily to speed up their passage, but to ensure that there is a better way of securing progress. I commend the Bill to the House.

6.59 pm

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)

I hope that, before the Bill returns to the Floor of the House, there will be virtually a zero alcohol limit for professional drivers, not a bottle of wine in an hour.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).