HC Deb 26 October 1995 vol 264 cc1201-5

Order for Third Reading read.

7 pm

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson (New Forest)

I beg to move, That the Bill be read the Third time.

The Bill, which is concerned with safety, was originally deposited in the other place in November 1994. It had a trouble-free passage through both Houses to this point. The Bill is modest but important. Railway Bills used to take the lion's share of parliamentary time but they are now something of a rarity, as a result of both Houses accepting recommendations of the Private Bill Procedure Joint Select Committee—of which I have the honour of being Chairman. This is a somewhat unusual occasion but it is nevertheless important.

Although the Bill had a trouble-free passage through both Houses, I must explain its purpose. Railtrack is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act 1985. On 1 April 1994, that part of the British Railways Board undertaking that consisted of the management of the railway network in Great Britain and of related property rights and liabilities was transferred to Railtrack.

Railtrack includes a number of level crossings created for the benefit of owners and occupiers of land adjoining the railway, known as accommodation level crossings. Under the previous arrangements, many of those parts of the railway system were not covered by current legislation. Certain railways within what is now Railtrack were authorised by legislation before 1845. One of them covers my own constituency—the 1830 Act relating to the London and South-Western Railway.

Those parts of the railway not covered by section 75 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 or by section 68 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 operated a totally different type of penalty for people who failed to close gates on accommodation crossings. Last night, I found in clause 84 of the 1830 Act—and we grumble about the length of Bills today—these words: And be it further enacted, That all Persons opening any Gate set up at either Side of the said Railway to communicate with the adjoining Land shall and they are hereby respectively required, as soon as they, and the Carriages, Cattle or other Animals or Things under their Care, shall have passed through the same, to shut and fasten the said Gate; and every Person neglecting so to do shall forfeit and pay any Sum not exceeding Forty Shillings for every such Offence. Clearly, that is a modest fine in today's economic climate.

The Railways Act 1992 brought up to date fines for all those railways that were subject to post-1845 legislation, but those before that date were not affected. The Bill is designed to bring the whole rail network, and fines for accommodation crossings in particular, up to date.

The Bill has three clauses, and it will do no more than apply to the pre-1845 Act crossings the same penalties as apply to the amended clauses Acts. If the Bill is passed, all accommodation level crossings throughout England, Wales and Scotland would be subject to the same laws concerning the closure of gates and the lowering of barriers—and the same penalty levels. It is important to note the reference to barriers, because many gates have been replaced by barriers, to which no Act of Parliament makes reference. The schedule comprises a long list of the railways affected.

This is a modernising and important piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.

7.6 pm

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)

I am sorry that we are not joined tonight by the Secretary of State, but a press release today informs us that he is speaking in Grantham, which presumably has a vacant seat. We wish him well there. I note also that in the awards run by PR Week, Railtrack is a finalist in the category of best internal publication. I did not know that Railtrack had any internal publications—I thought that they all had become public.

We have no problem with the Bill, and I endorse the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson). The measure will make a significant contribution to safety, but it must be seen in the context of everything that Railtrack is doing. We question whether everything that is happening on the railways is in line with the measures that the hon. Gentleman is rightly proposing tonight.

I will share with the House some of the thoughts of Jan Glasscock, who I understand is a safety director with Railtrack South, contained in a memorandum in which he reviews safety issues within his area. He complains about the prescriptive nature of safety regulations on the railways and states that the inevitable effect has been either to close the railway completely for lengthy periods or cause excessive delay, and/or reduce the number of trains that can be passed over a specific route. Jan Glasscock writes that while not wishing to dilute the safety message, they must be mindful of the commercial effect that those requirements are having on the railway industry and on Railtrack as a business. He attaches a list of rules, regulations and instructions that he suggests should be got rid of without compromising safety.

The most disturbing passage in that memorandum is the final paragraph, where Jan Glasscock concludes with a flourish: It is no good in five years' time saying 'We were the safest railway in the world, but we went out of business.' That is a very disturbing sentiment. We want to be able to say, unequivocally, that we have—as we have had in the past—the safest railway in the world; but we do not want that to be pitted against the commercial interests of a private company. For Jan Glasscock to predict that he might conceivably say in five years' time, "We were the safest railway in the world, but we went out of business" suggests to me an immaturity and conflict of interests in the organisation which are intolerable, and which on their own would represent a very good reason for abandoning the privatisation of Railtrack.

Jan Glasscock has suggested a list of measures. Some are doubtless fairly marginal, but others are sufficient to make us wonder whether it is really such a good idea to dispense with safety measures that have been built up over time. He suggests, for instance, allowing the use of a passenger train during fog in the event of information that a person has fallen out. I do not know why that is not considered a good idea, but I am sure that I do not want the commercial interests of Railtrack to determine whether that measure should be repealed now.

Jan Glasscock also wants a more lax regime in regard to train crew route knowledge. I do not wish to detain the House, but the list continues. In regard to signalling, for instance—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman would be wise to follow his own advice. We are dealing with a narrow Bill—on Third Reading, which makes the debate even narrower.

Mr. Wilson

I am grateful to you for letting me get this far, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I nevertheless think it important to view safety issues in a wider context—and it so happens that some of Jan Glasscock's recommendations for a more lax safety regime apply to level crossings.

It is important to put the Bill in that context. If, as a result of privatisation, we are indeed moving towards a regime in which safety is pitted against the commercial interests of Railtrack, it is all the more important to have the measures and penalties that we are discussing.

I leave hon. Members with that thought from Jan Glasscock: It is no good in five years' time saying, 'We were the safest railway in the world but we went out of business.' What worries me is that in five years' time we could be saying, "We were the safest railway in the world, but then we were privatised and commercial interests took over." That really would be a tragedy for the country.

7.12 pm
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris)

The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) loses no opportunity to blame every leaf on every line—and, no doubt, inappropriate kinds of snow—on privatisation, which has not yet come about. He was remarkably restrained this evening, however: we did not hear of a single leaf, or a single flicker of snow.

The Bill rebuts the hon. Gentleman's implication—British Airways might have some difficulty following the logic of this extraordinary proposition—that the introduction of private capital and more effective management necessarily leads to lower safety standards. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) pointed out, it is a housekeeping measure, which seeks to bring the penalties imposed on railways built before 1845 for leaving crossing gates open into line with those built after that date. The anomaly is due to the omission of pre-1845 railways from the Transport and Works Act 1992.

I suppose that, as a previous chairman of the Campaign for Freedom of Information in the House, I should reveal that on occasions such as this Ministers are furnished with sheets of questions and answers anticipating the difficult barbs that may be launched by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I can exclusively reveal—provided, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you promise not to pass the information on—that question 2 on my list reads, "Why missed out?" The answer is "Oversight".

Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North)

Somebody probably cocked it up.

Mr. Norris

I am not entirely sure whether that is parliamentary expression, but it is more or less the reason for our being here this evening.

Mr. Allen

A slip of the quill.

Mr. Norris

A slip of the quill, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says.

I do not think that I need add to the succinct explanation offered by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest of why this innocuous measure should not be given its Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to

Bill accordingly read the Third Time, and passed.