HC Deb 16 February 1996 vol 271 cc1302-12

Order for Second Reading read.

1.52 pm
Mr. Mark Robinson (Somerton and Frome)

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

It would be difficult to overestimate the importance of the railways in the development of the country's transport infrastructure. They certainly shaped the landscape of my childhood. I grew up in Bristol, which contains many examples of the work of Isambard Kingdom Brunel. I have many early memories of travelling to London on the Great Western Railway, as we always called it, through the great Box tunnel just outside Bath. I was lucky enough to travel on occasions on the old Bristolian with one of the Castle locomotives pulling the coaches rapidly along.

I remember thinking that I would approve of the advent of the diesel engine as modern technology, but I quickly changed my mind. I believe that many, like me, have great affection for the age of steam and the history of our railways. The influence of the railways on our nation goes far deeper than just the landscape. One has to think only of the Duke of Wellington's anxiety that railways would encourage the lower orders to go uselessly wandering about the country to realise the enormous social change that has been brought by the railways, in other countries as well as ours. Those of us who are aficionados of the Western movie will clearly understand that.

As a history graduate, I believe strongly in the importance of learning from the past. To do that effectively, we must ensure that historic materials are preserved and made available to the public so that it is possible for our children to learn about the railways and their great contribution to our industrial revolution.

Governments of all political parties have been aware for some time of the need to ensure the conservation of our railway heritage.

Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham)

Does my hon. Friend agree that interest in the railway heritage is part of a wider interest in transport heritage'? If any museum shows old ships or ship models, old bicycles, old cars, old aircraft, old engines or old carriages, those displays have a tremendous appeal for the young, and always will do. That interest should be fostered and encouraged, and that is why my hon. Friend's Bill should be supported in every possible way.

Mr. Robinson

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank him for his intervention. At this late stage, it may be difficult to extend the scope of the Bill to the preservation of other parts of our transportation heritage. My hon. Friend's extremely good point is borne in mind by all those who have a great affection for the railways.

Section 114 of the Transport Act 1968 transferred responsibility for British Railways Board's historic artefacts and certain of its records to the then Department of Education and Science. In 1975, the national railway museum was opened in York on the site of the former London and North East Railway museum in what was once the York north motive power depot, to house those artefacts and records. I look forward to visiting the constituency of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley), who has registered his support for the Bill. For reasons connected with his advice surgeries, however, he is unable to be with us today. I certainly look forward to taking up an invitation to visit the national railway museum. If the Bill is successful in passing into law, I hope to deposit a copy of the Act at the museum.

Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham)

While touring the north, perhaps my hon. Friend would like to come to my constituency to visit Wylam in Northumberland, the birthplace of the locomotive. One of the great disputes in history surrounds who built the first locomotive. Wylam is the birthplace of George Stephenson. Although he is often credited with building the first locomotive, it was built by a local shipowner, William Hedley. If records had been properly kept, that mystery could have been cleared up many years ago.

Mr. Robinson

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. My knowledge of railway history has just been significantly improved. If I have time, and my hon. Friend is in his constituency, I will be delighted to come and learn a little bit more on my way north.

The need to preserve our railway heritage was not forgotten in the privatisation legislation, because section 125 of the Railways Act 1993 extended the protection of railway artefacts and records to those owned by the new public sector bodies set up under that Act. Under that section, the Railway Heritage Committee was created in 1994, with the function of designating artefacts or records as worthy of preservation and ensuring that they go to the appropriate collecting institution at the end of their working lives. The committee consists of individuals who are respected in the working railway and railway heritage communities.

The committee has done some worthwhile work. For example, it has designated the Railtrack collection of Brunel-era drawings between 1883 and 1859. That collection comprises more than 7,000 drawings of original Great Western Railway structures, many of them by IKB himself, and bearing his signature. Classed as working drawings, many are still in use and are regularly consulted by Railtrack engineers. A programme of restoration is under way and a feasibility study is now in process to determine whether additional funds can be found to speed up that programme and make the collection available for public inspection.

Also designated is the famous Gooch centrepiece—which has nothing to do with the great man who recently occupied the crease at many of our test match grounds. In 1837, Brunel appointed Sir Daniel Gooch, then aged 21, as the GWR's first locomotive superintendent. He was living proof that one could rise to the top, because, although he resigned in 1864, he soon returned as chairman of the board. In 1872, the shareholders voted him an honorarium of 5,000 guineas, from which the centrepiece, which has a triangular base, was commissioned. At each corner of the centrepiece sits a sculptured figure—I. K. Brunel, George Stephenson and Joseph Locke. Artefacts from the royal train—among other things—are currently being considered for designation.

The powers of the committee, and the excellent work that it has carried out, are in danger of coming to an abrupt end when the companies that own railway artefacts and records are privatised. When the Railways Bill was in another place, Ministers undertook to bring forward a voluntary scheme to extend the heritage regime to the private sector. I understand that that is no longer considered a viable option. The Bill will ensure the protection of those artefacts and records that are leaving the protection of the Railways Act as their owners pass into the private sector.

I pay tribute to the chairman and members of the Railway Heritage Committee, who have given the Bill so much support. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister and to his civil servants at the Department of Transport, who have also taken a keen interest in this matter. Their advice in helping to frame the legislation has been most useful. I am grateful that they were prepared to listen to members of the Railway Heritage Committee and to incorporate their thoughts and observations into the Bill.

The Bill deals with moveable items, artifacts and records, rather than buildings and permanent structures. Buildings and permanent structures are protected by planning legislation. Brunel's train sheds at Temple Mead are grade 1 listed. Hon. Members will be aware that the Railway Heritage Trust does an excellent job in funding and carrying out preservation work on such structures.

The owners of artefacts and records that are covered by the Bill will inherit the British Railways Board's property under the restructuring of the railway industry, as a consequence of the Railways Act 1993. The Bill makes a number of changes, which reflect the different requirements of a scheme involving private sector operators.

I shall outline how the regime will work in practice. When a body to which the Bill applies wishes to dispose of a designated artefact or record, it will be required to notify the committee of the intended recipient and the terms of the disposal. If the committee is unhappy with either the intended recipient or the terms, it can direct the body to offer the item to a different person, on different terms, or both.

The body making the disposal will be able to do so only with the committee's consent or under the terms directed by the committee, but the committee has to make up its mind in six months, after which the disposing body can act freely. I believe that to be a reasonable stipulation.

If the committee determines terms for the disposal, the people to whom the object is offered have to act within six months. All other such disposals under the Bill would be void. Making disposals in contravention of the Bill void should act as a deterrent and reduce the likelihood of dishonest dealings. That is why I have felt that it would be inappropriate to introduce criminal sanctions into the Bill.

I pay tribute to those who devote so much of their lives to preserve old steam locomotives, carriages and the like. Indeed, this week, I had the opportunity to visit Cranmore railway station in my constituency, where I saw the painstaking work that was being done on the Nunney Castle, which is one of the Castle class steam locomotives. In the 1980s, I represented the constituency of Newport, West. Extraordinarily enough, I found one of my former constituents, whom I knew well at the time, on top of the engine busily polishing its engine and getting it ready for tomorrow. As part of its commissioning, tomorrow, it will set off on a journey to Plymouth, which will take the weekend, and then return to Cranmore the following weekend, hopefully having given much pleasure to many people—as it will continue to do.

The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to give guidance to the committee. That guidance will be used to set out the compensation and dispute regulations and to give helpful advice on how to word directions so that they may be legally binding.

In order to be effective in its task of preserving railway artefacts and records, the legislative framework must recognise the interests of the working railway. It is essential that the working railway should work in partnership with the railway heritage community in the preservation, for future generations, of railway artefacts and records. I believe that the provisions of the Bill will meet that need.

When an item is transferred from a private sector body to a collecting institution, in accordance with the direction of the committee, and the collecting institution pays market value compensation to that body, the committee would not be able to direct the owner to dispose of an item in a way different from that which the owner wishes—for instance, to lease when he wishes to sell or vice versa. For the further protection of the owners, the committee would be required to consent to a proposed disposal if it does not object, rather than just sit on it until its power to direct expires after six months. If the committee failed to notify the owner of the designated artefact or record of the designation, that owner would be free to dispose of that item.

Of course, it is necessary to ensure that working records and artefacts are not in danger of compulsory transfer to museums. To that end, transfers of equipment between owners covered by the Bill—which would, before April 1994, have been BR internal transfers—and disposals in accordance with transfer schemes under part II of the Railways Act 1993, would not require a direction from the committee.

I believe that the Bill will act as an important fail-safe in the task of preserving our railway heritage. One of the delights of our railway heritage is the work of individuals and organisations who voluntarily ensure that museums, such as that in York, make such a contribution to the history of our railways. By doing so, they demonstrate to the younger generation just how important our railways have been to the development of Britain's economic prosperity.

We can travel around many parts of our country and come across preserved and special railways. Indeed, I did so only last summer, when I had the pleasure of travelling on the Blaenau Ffestiniog railway with my family. That railway, together with the East Somerset and West Somerset railways, are to be commended to any hon. Members who are thinking of doing something a little different in the coming summer recess. Certainly, for those of us with young children it is a delight to travel on the railways and to see the enthusiasm of the people who run them and the care that is taken to ensure that these magnificent engines and their carriages are restored to such a remarkable condition.

I know that many hon. Members who spend many years in the House are never successful in the private Member's ballot. I feel fortunate for having been successful and for having this opportunity to try to contribute to the preservation work on our railways. I commend the Bill to the House. I hope that it will pass all its stages, go into another place and eventually become law.

2.10 pm
Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) on choosing the subject of the Bill, and I am grateful to him for his generous reference to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley), who has put much effort into achieving the ends that the Bill embraces.

My only possible disagreement with the Bill is over what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said about there not being any need for criminal sanctions. Given some of the people to whom the Government appear willing to sell our railways, criminal sanctions might not be a bad idea. Compared with systematic ticket fraud or stashing away a few million pounds for after the success of a management buy-out, flogging a few artefacts on the side might seem a relatively minor offence.

Mr. Mark Robinson

I deliberately tried to keep the politics of change in the railways out of my speech. When I visited Cranmore station, it was mentioned to me that one of the advantages of privatisation, which is already apparent, is that people are thinking up new ideas and new ways in which to improve our railways, which I am sure is for the good.

Mr. Wilson

Let us leave it at that. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that sounds like a pious hope rather than a firm commitment.

One cannot entirely leave politics out of the debate, because the Bill is a necessary tidying-up measure as a consequence of rail fragmentation for privatisation. If the railways were not being fragmented for privatisation, there would be no need for the Bill.

The alternative to the Bill, however, as I am sure the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome would agree, is unthinkable. If no safeguard were built into rail privatisation legislation, the history of our railways would be scattered to the four winds, which is certainly not acceptable. Indeed, it would be a tragedy to compound the other tragedies unfolding in our railway network. There must be measures to stop people who, if uncontrolled, might be prepared to sell the railway family silver and other valuables.

We are not only dealing with knick-knacks. For instance, Railtrack owns many historic documents such as the Brunel drawings—the original working plans for the Great Western railway, signed by Brunel and still kept at Swindon—as well as artefacts such as signal boxes and items of signalling equipment. There is much valuable material, and not only in the monetary sense. Much of it is recognised as of intrinsic value by everybody who is interested in this country's extraordinary railway history. We do not want Railtrack to be privatised, and I do not expect it to be, but if it were, it would be an additional public scandal if it gained untrammelled possession of those artefacts.

It is as well to keep some control of the more ancient parts of our railway network, and not only for historic reasons. I was interested in a story in last Sunday's Wales on Sunday that described the return of "ancient trains" to the rails. It said: On the Rhymney Valley line, a 35-year-old train from … Watermans Railways company travels the route from Mondays to Fridays. The Class 47 diesel engine, normally used on special trips, is known as Davies the Ocean. So, in our wonderful new railway system, the engine has been brought back into service for regular passenger use.

On the south Wales to Birmingham route, passengers found themselves on a train leased back from a railway preservation company in Lancashire. A spokesman for the train leasing companies went as far as to say: A lot of people actually like travelling on the old rolling stock. They may do if they choose to, but whether they want to turn up for their normal commuter train and find that it has been replaced by one that the bold, new, fragmented railway company has hired from a rail preservation company because there is no new rolling stock in the country is another matter. I repeat, the spokesman, effectively for the Government, said: A lot of people actually like travelling on the old rolling stock. However, Cardiff resident Nick Lewis, who travelled between Cardiff and Newport on Sunday, said: I couldn't believe it when this ancient train trundled into the station. It was an absolute disgrace to go back 40 years in time to travel in this dilapidated and decrepit train.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts)

No sense of history.

Mr. Wilson

As the Minister says, that shows no sense of history. However, he would probably prefer to choose when he travels on 40-year-old trains hired from rail preservation societies and when he travels on rather more modern rolling stock. The point is that it is not just a matter of keeping old railway artefacts to put them into museums. There is the problem that, in the new set-up, the museums will be raided to keep the railways running at all.

As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, the railway industry in this country has a long and honourable history, with its origins in the 18th-century coal mining industry. Earlier, hon. Members discussed which was the first locomotive. There are many contenders for the title of first railway in the United Kingdom. The first railway sanctioned by Parliament was the Surrey iron railway from Wandsworth to Croydon in 1801. The first Scottish line authorised by Act of Parliament was the Kilmarnock and Troon railway of 1808, which opened in 1812 and linked collieries at Kilmarnock to Troon harbour. There is no truth in the rumour that Jimmy Knapp was on board. The line operated with a steam locomotive and carried passengers as well, several years before the Stockton and Darlington railway in 1825, which is usually credited with being the first public steam railway in Britain.

The railways laid the foundations of much of the modern British economy and were one of the more important British developments. Railways were then adopted around the world. British and especially Scottish railway engineers took their expertise to the railways of south America, India and Australia, as well as Europe.

It is understandable that the passionate devotion of many in Britain to the railway should extend to an interest in preserving its past. There are 35 preserved steam railways listed in the British Rail timetable and dozens of museums dedicated to the history of the railways. Many people devote weekends, holidays and retirement to restoring railway equipment and sharing it with the public, who have a huge interest in our railway heritage.

Regardless of questions of ownership—I do not think that my views on that can be mistaken—it is right to have in place a properly ordered procedure for the identification and protection of historic railways. The Bill is therefore welcome. The real tragedy in our railway system is that we are now approaching 1,000 days since an order was placed in this country for new railway rolling stock. Let us therefore treasure what was given to us in the past, while bitterly regetting what is being done to our railway network and our railway rolling stock in the present.

The operations of the proposed committee must be rigid. I can see the point in a six-month time bar after which the owners can do what they like. However, that suggests potential loopholes, and it must be absolutely clear that the availability of the artefacts is notified, publicly known and considered at an early stage by the committee, and the committee's conclusions should be well known, certainly within the railway world. We do not want to find that, somehow or other, certain disposals have slipped through before anyone noticed. In Committee, we should consider ways in which to tighten up the procedures so that they guard against that eventuality.

In many instances, we are dealing with objects of considerable value, not just in the national market, but in the international market. Let us ensure that they are properly protected.

2.18 pm
The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) on having introduced this important Bill. I also welcome the support of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). We do not often agree on railway matters, but I am glad that we can at least agree on this one. However, I shall not let the hon. Gentleman tempt me towards some of the more controversial aspects of the railways. Perhaps the Hansard record of some of our rather more spirited exchanges on privatisation should form part of the record of the history of privatisation—but I shall say no more about that today.

As the Minister responsible for railways, I am well aware of the importance of and fascination for railway heritage. My hon. Friend has already touched on its value to future generations and to historians. On a more practical note, it is vital for the railway that artefacts and records of historical significance are preserved, so that the industry can benefit from the lessons of the past.

Historic railway records can be surprisingly relevant to the running of the railways today. Indeed, Railtrack still has about 7,000 engineering drawings from the Brunel era. They have not been placed in a museum, because, as my hon. Friend has explained, they are still in use as working records.

The need to ensure the preservation of Britain's railway heritage was taken into account during the passage of the Railways Act 1993, by the creation of the Railway Heritage Committee, an independent committee of experts from railway heritage interests and from the railways industry, to ensure that historically significant railway artefacts and records went to the appropriate collecting institution at the end of their useful lives and became available to a wider public. I must take this opportunity to join my hon. Friend in applauding the work done by that committee.

The committee's powers under the Railways Act extended to the British Railways Board, and to the new public sector bodies due to come into being as part of the restructuring process. Now many of BR's successors are entering the private sector, and thus leaving the scope of the existing heritage provisions, which means that new arrangements have to be made.

Ministers recognised while the Railways Bill was in another place that it would in time be necessary to extend the heritage provisions to the private sector. As my hon. Friend said, there was then a proposal to introduce a voluntary scheme, but on closer examination that proposal proved inappropriate, and we decided that legislation for a statutory scheme was necessary.

I must thank my hon. Friend and congratulate him on the timeliness of his Bill. It will reinforce the powers of the Railway Heritage Committee and enable it to carry out its work more effectively, by giving it power to require information from owners of records and artefacts and by allowing it to delegate to sub-committees. The power to require information from owners is important, and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North touched upon that aspect. We can ensure that those important records and artefacts are protected only if we know of their existence, and of any proposal to dispose of them.

There may be a gap between privatisation of some of the major owners of railway artefacts and records and the enactment of the Bill. I understand that that may cause concern, but I can assure the House that transfer to private ownership does not mean that objects will be lost to the nation. It has already been mentioned that Railtrack is one of the major owners of such records and artefacts, and I have discussed the matter with the chairman of Railtrack. I have his personal assurance that, as one of the principal owners of railway records, Railtrack will continue to work positively with the Railway Heritage Committee after privatisation. Indeed, Railtrack's solicitor is a member of the Committee and fully supports its work.

Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the chairman of Railtrack, too, is what is colloquially known as a bit of railway buff, and will therefore support the Bill containing the measures outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome?

Mr. Watts

Yes, I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. Indeed, I would expect many railway companies moving into the private sector still to want to make records and artefacts available to collecting institutions at nominal cost, as the nationalised railway has done. They will do that to show their support and good faith, and their commitment to both the future and the past of the railway.

Mr. Wilson

On the subject of good faith, if the owners or inheritors of the artefacts set a price upon them, will the purchasing body be given any financial support, as there is likely to be a different level of commercial transaction involved than at present?

Mr. Watts

I am not sure whether the private sector owners will necessarily want to get full the commercial value for the items that they seek to dispose of, but I shall refer to the way in which we propose to use the Secretary of State's power of guidance to indicate the values that we would expect to be set.

My hon. Friend has said that the Bill provides for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the committee, and I should perhaps explain why that power is necessary and how it would be exercised. It is essential that private sector owners of designated records and artefacts be compensated at market value if the committee directs disposal of those items. But the British Railways Board is happy to continue to transfer records and artefacts to the national railway museum, the Public Record Office, the Scottish Record Office and other collecting institutions, either free or for a nominal charge.

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)

Will my hon. Friend ensure that the Royal Commission on historical manuscripts—of which I am a member—is consulted on the disposal of all archives? Will he also recommended that, where possible, artefacts should be transferred to the science museum's department at York, a marvellous and incomparable railway museum?

Mr. Watts

Indeed. Most of these records have in the past been passed to the railway museum in York, and we intend that that should continue. I shall look further into the point that my hon. Friend makes about the royal commission.

It would not be right to obstruct such a mutually beneficial arrangement between the British Railways Board and the collecting institutions, and it would be wrong for us to make one provision in the Bill for the public sector and another for the private sector, as I am advised that that might hybridise the Bill. I am also responsible for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, and I think that one hybrid Bill at a time is quite enough. The guidance would deal with that problem.

The market value compensation for private sector bodies would be arrived at through agreement between the owner and the collecting institution. Clearly they will not always agree, and the guidance will therefore need to make provision for disputes. We envisage recourse to arbitration under those circumstances. If the parties failed to agree on an arbiter, the president of the Institute of Arbiters would be asked to choose one. The guidance would cover those matters. In addition, the guidance will assist the committee in drafting directions.

I understand that there may be some concern that giving the Secretary of State the power to provide guidance to the committee would undermine its independence. I must stress that it is not our intention to dictate to the committee which artefacts and records should be preserved. Even if the Secretary of State were to give such guidance, the committee would merely be obliged to have regard to it, not to follow it.

A summary of the matters to be covered in the guidance is set out in more detail in the notes on clauses for this Bill, copies of which are available from the Vote Office and have been placed in the Library. I am aware of the public interest in the actual contents of the guidance and I can confirm that, when it has been fully worked up, it will be published and copies placed in the Library.

Railway heritage may be primarily concerned with the past but, as I said earlier, it is highly relevant to the future. I am confident that privatisation will bring considerable improvements in the running of the railway, and innovations that will be of interest to future generations. I am therefore very keen to ensure that the records of such an exciting period in railway history and the innovations that will be encouraged by the introduction of private sector disciplines will be preserved for the nation.

I warmly encourage my hon. Friend to visit the national railway museum and to deposit a copy of his Bill there. I am sure that he would be welcomed there and would enjoy his visit. The Bill is supported on both sides of House and is clearly very much in the public interest. I commend it whole-heartedly to the House, and invite the House to give it a Second Reading.

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).