HC Deb 10 May 1996 vol 277 cc589-99 1.14 pm
Mr. Mark Robinson (Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 30, at beginning insert `Subject to subsection (4) below,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 31, at end insert— '(4) References in this section to records do not include references to records which are public records within the meaning of the Public Records Act 1958.'.

Mr. Robinson

I received representations to the effect that the Bill as drafted could lead to confusion if records with which it deals are already covered by the Public Records Act 1958. I gave notice in Committee that I would table these amendments on Report. Without them, there would be unnecessary duplication of bureaucracy, which I am sure hon. Members would want to avoid and which could only lead to confusion.

I believe that public records are adequately protected without providing the Railway Heritage Committee with the power to designate them. I am pleased that the committee agrees with that proposition, and I urge the House to support the amendments, which are purely technical.

Mr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West)

Will my hon. Friend explain briefly the sort of records that would not be designated? I do not object to the amendments—he flagged the issue in Committee—but it would be helpful to have one or two examples of the type of record involved.

Mr. Robinson

We are talking about things that are a matter of public record and which are therefore classified as public records. There are a host of them, but I do not have a specific example in mind. The point is that the power to designate already exists, so to write that power into the Bill would simply provide two systems of designation whereas only one is needed.

The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat)

The Government agree entirely with my hon. Friend and support the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 2, line 31, at end insert—

'(4) References in this section to records do not include references to records which are public records within the meaning of the Public Records Act 1958.'.—[Mr. Mark Robinson.]

Order for Third Reading read.

1.16 pm
Mr. Mark Robinson

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

I begin by thanking all those who have helped to bring the Bill to Third Reading. I especially thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads for his support and advice. He has explained why he is unable to be here this afternoon, but the Government are well represented by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage, whose Department has an interest in the Bill.

It is also appropriate to mention Sir Gordon Higginson, the chairman of the Railway Heritage Committee, his colleagues on that committee, and the British Railways Board, because they, too, have been instrumental in supporting the Bill. Indeed, the Bill's success in progressing towards the statute book required all-party consensus, and I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House who served on the Standing Committee and who brought with them a wide range of specialist interest in, and knowledge of, our railways.

My task was not as difficult as that described by F. S. Williams, a Nottinghamshire clergyman, in his book entitled "Our Iron Roads", which was published in the 1870s and republished 100 years later. In it, he describes the tortuous business of getting on the statute book legislation necessary to build our railways, a process that has been reflected in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill. My Bill has had a relatively smooth passage, for which I am grateful. I know that people interested in the railways are equally appreciative.

I shall deal now with the substance of the Bill. It will ensure that railway artefacts and records of historic interest continue to be preserved for posterity. It will strengthen the position of the Railway Heritage Committee, which was set up under the Railways Act 1993, by bringing items now in the private sector back within its remit. Previous legislation had been confined to public sector bodies, which would be virtually meaningless post privatisation.

There has for a long time been all-party support for the aim of preserving the railway heritage of the nation. Section 144 of the Transport Act 1968 transferred responsibility for the British Railways Board's historical artefacts and certain of its records to the Department of Education and Science. In 1975, the national railway museum was established in York. I am sure that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) and my hon. Friend the Minister would wish to join me in praising the excellent work that the museum has done since then. Railway heritage was taken into account in the Railways Act 1993. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for York for his support during my work on the Bill.

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 functions of designating artefacts and records as worthy of preservation and ensuring that they went to the appropriate collecting institutions at the end of their working lives. The committee is composed of highly respected figures in the working railway and railway heritage communities, and is chaired by the former vice-chancellor of the University of Southampton, Sir Gordon Higginson. It has already undertaken some worthwhile work, to which I pay tribute.

The committee has designated more than 7,000 engineering drawings from the Brunel era, many of which bear the signature of Isambard Kingdom Brunel. That is particularly gratifying to me, because I was born in Bristol and spent much of my childhood there. IKB is therefore a part of my culture. I am pleased to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) is in the Chamber, as he and I are aware of the tremendous contribution that Brunel made to the history of that great city. In addition, I am glad that Bristol is once again governed as a city and is no longer burdened with the county of Avon. Perhaps that is a little outside the remit of the Bill.

I have been asked to give examples of items that might be designated for preservation. They include working drawings, including drawings of stations or rolling stock; publications such as rulebooks, timetables or instruction manuals; paintings of railway subjects; posters and publicity material; small artefacts marked with the monogram of the owning company, such as crockery and furniture; and items of signalling equipment, such as block instruments, signal repeaters or early electro-mechanical relays. Larger items, such as signals, lever frames and even a complete signal box could also be included. I have been told that, because it is able to be dismantled, the Forth rail bridge might be included as an artefact. Some track components, such as rail supports, chairs or point-blocking mechanisms, and of course our much treasured and valuable rolling stock, might also be designated.

The designations will not be confined to historic items; modern items such as solid state interlocking signalling systems, which have been developed in Britain and are now exported worldwide, are also worthy of consideration. Another example might be the high-speed diesel train, the InterCity 125, used on the great western line, the midland main line, the north Wales line and some cross-country services. The class 158 diesel train used on the Bristol, Frome, Yeovil and Weymouth line may also be included. That line commands great affection from my constituents in Frome, and the rail users group in Frome is anxious that it should continue to operate successfully. I am glad that it has been included in the franchising director's timetabling proposals.

The powers of the Railway Heritage Committee would be under threat without this Bill. As companies pass into the private sector, their historic records and artefacts cease to be covered by the committee's powers. As the flotation of Railtrack will soon be upon us—Railtrack is one of the principal owners of railway records—this is a matter of pressing concern. The problem was foreseen when the Railways Bill was in another place. Ministers undertook to cover the private sector through a voluntary scheme, but it was later found that that was not a workable option. That is why I am now promoting this Bill. It will ensure the protection of those artefacts and records which leave the protection of section 125 of the Railways Act 1993 as their owners are privatised.

The Bill deals with artefacts and records. There was considerable discussion in Committee about the precise meaning of "artefact" and whether it included buildings but, of course, buildings and permanent structures are protected by planning legislation. A good example of that is the grade I listed engine sheds at Bristol Temple Meads. Many hon. Members, notably the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), will be aware of the Railway Heritage Trust's excellent work in funding and carrying out preservation work on those engine sheds.

There is an issue concerning buildings. In Committee, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East raised the matter of lottery funding for railway buildings, which is also a matter of some concern to me. A large number of railway buildings and structures of heritage interest will pass into private sector ownership when Railtrack is floated. The buildings are highly diverse. They range from Brunel's train sheds at Bristol to the Birmingham New Street signal box. Whatever hon. Members' views on the desirability of preserving individual buildings—on which there has often been lively debate—it will be in the public interest as much after privatisation as before that those buildings should be conserved for future generations. However, their eligibility for funding from the national heritage memorial fund will end at flotation. That is clearly undesirable.

A number of exciting railway heritage projects could also benefit from lottery funding, but they fall outside the categories of project which may attract such funding. They include plans to set up a national railway archive. That would not necessarily be done by putting all important railway records together under one roof. It could be done by creating several regional centres. Visitors to any centre would be able to access documents held at other centres through computer links. That would be of great help and benefit to railway historians, and it could be of considerable educational benefit.

Mr. Stern

Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, I am sure that he will be aware of an exact example of what he is talking about in the application before the national heritage memorial fund for funding for a museum of the empire in the Brunel engine sheds at Temple Meads. Does he agree that that could be of great educational value outside the railway context, and should be encouraged? I am most grateful to him that the Bill will encourage that.

Mr. Robinson

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I agree with him and support that very concept. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will have listened to his words carefully.

Another problem is the drawings from the Brunel era. For their restoration to be eligible for lottery funding, the drawings need to be placed in a trust. That would make it difficult for Railtrack to obtain access to them. Although many of the drawings are in a fragile state, they are still working drawings and, as such, Railtrack is under a statutory obligation to provide copies on request to those responsible for track maintenance. As they are of considerable historical importance to the nation, it is surely not right that they should be ruled out of lottery funding on a technicality of ownership. I should be interested to hear the views of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, when he replies to the debate, on the possibility of extending the criteria for eligibility for lottery funding.

The Bill will extend the protection currently afforded to records and artefacts owned by publicly owned railway companies under the Railways Act 1993 to similar items owned by the bodies that will inherit, or have already inherited, the British Railways Board's assets under the restructuring of the railways industry as a consequence of that Act.

As well as extending the class of owners to be covered by the heritage regime, the Bill makes several other improvements to existing legislation. It provides for the Railway Heritage Committee to delegate its functions to sub-committees and requires owners to furnish it with information relevant to its functions. Those changes will help it to carry on its work more quickly and effectively. Extension to private sector owners introduces several complications, but I am pleased to be able to say that they have been fully tackled in the Bill. Section 125 of the Railways Act 1993 was designed to facilitate consensual arrangements between public sector bodies. The advent of private sector owners necessitates the introduction of a clearer procedure to ensure fairness.

I shall briefly outline how the regime under the Bill would work in practice. When a body to which the Bill applies wished to dispose of a designated artefact or record, it would be required to notify the Railway Heritage Committee of the intended recipient and the terms of disposal. If the committee was unhappy with the intended recipient or the terms, it would be able to direct the owner of the item to offer it to a different person, or on different terms, or both. The owner could dispose of the item only with the committee's consent or under the terms directed by it, but the committee would need to make up its mind within six months, after which the owner could act freely. If the committee determined terms for the disposal, the person to whom the item was offered would have six months in which to act. Any disposals in respect of which the owner did not follow the committee's procedure would be void. That should act as a deterrent and reduce the likelihood of dishonest dealings. Criminal sanctions are not included in the Bill because they are inappropriate—another matter on which we touched in Committee.

The interests of the working railway need to be recognised in the heritage regime if it is to be effective. It is essential that the working railway should function in partnership with the railway heritage community, which is strong in Britain, in ensuring the preservation of historical railway artefacts and records for future generations. In my constituency, the East Somerset railway is an example of the enthusiasm of the railway heritage community. A proposal for the Somerset and Dorset Railway restoration between the towns of Radstock and Shepton Mallet, which runs through my constituency, is shortly due for consideration by the Millennium Commission. I certainly wish it well.

When an item is transferred from a private sector body to a collecting institution under the terms of a direction from the Railway Heritage Committee, the collecting institution pays market value compensation to that body. The committee would not be able to direct an owner to dispose of an item in a way different from that desired by the owner—for example, to direct him to sell when he wishes to lease or vice versa. For the further protection of owners, the committee would be required to give explicit consent to a disposal to which it does not object rather than airily waiting six months for its direction power to expire. Further, if it failed to notify owners that items in their possession had been designated, they would be free to dispose of them.

The Bill does not interfere with the day-to-day operation of the railway. It does not threaten working records and artefacts with compulsory transfer to museums. Transfers of equipment between owners covered by the Bill which, before April 1994, would have been internal British Rail transfers and disposals in accordance with transfer schemes under part II of the Railways Act 1993 would not require directions from the committee. Nor would the new regime prevent modifications to working railway artefacts or records which would extend or enhance their working lives. The paper on the committee's procedures that was circulated to members of the Standing Committee stressed that it was not the committee's view that working railway items of historical significance should be frozen on designation. They are of greater interest if they are modified in the same way as would have been the case had they not been so designated. In any event, the Bill does not give the committee any powers to restrict modifications to designated items.

I should add that I am grateful that the successor companies to British Rail have not objected to the Bill. Indeed, they have shown their support because they are represented on the Railway Heritage Committee.

The Bill would give the Secretary of State the power to give the Railway Heritage Committee guidance. Outline guidance, setting out compensation and dispute resolution arrangements and advising on the wording of directions, was circulated to members of the Standing Committee.

The Bill enjoys wide support in the railway industry and in railway heritage communities in my constituency and the country at large. I have been delighted not merely by the support that it has received, but because it received an unopposed Second Reading and has not been amended except by today's technical amendment. This is a Bill that hon. Members on both sides of the House can support, and I commend it to the House.

1.34 pm
Mr. Stern

I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make a few brief comments on the Bill, as I was sorry to miss the Second Reading.

My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) mentioned one qualification that I have for being interested in the subject—any hon. Member representing the Bristol region would be, because of the wealth of railway history and railway excellence there.

There are two other qualifications. First, several tributes have been paid during the passage of the Bill to the work done for railway heritage by the late and much lamented Robert Adley. His first seat was Bristol, North-East. On a boundary change, I inherited part of my constituency from that seat, so I can claim with great pleasure that, in speaking today for that constituency, I am in a small way carrying on the tradition.

Mr. Mark Robinson

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has mentioned Robert Adley, who was a good friend of mine. Indeed, I campaigned for him in Bristol many years ago. I mentioned his contribution on Second Reading. It is a coincidence perhaps, but his widow Jane now lives in my constituency and I know that she will be as delighted about the Bill as anyone.

Mr. Stern

I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

The other qualification is that I have the almost unique distinction in the House of representing a constituency in which fresh track has recently been laid and a fresh station built. That is sufficiently rare in the recent history of our railways, so it is worth putting on record that, with the strong support of my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads, Filton Abbey Wood station was built and opened in record time within the past few months. Fresh track had to be laid to it, and it is already up and running as part of the local railway network. That is something on which the railway industry should meditate.

The heritage to which the Bill refers does not merely go back to the original foundation of the railway. Railway heritage is not just about Brunel and the great engineers who worked around him. It is also about the continuing history of a developing industry. Indeed, that development has accelerated. Future historians of the railway will study and admire the expansion that has taken place—so far in a very modest way—and which will be encouraged by recent events, for it is as much a part of that heritage as the sheds at Bristol Temple Meads.

Mr. Robinson

When we first discussed the Bill, we debated whether it should be confined to historic records. That is why we drafted it to ensure that modern records would be included. Our railways are developing under our very eyes, which delights me. The other day, I read about a new steam engine—being developed in Switzerland—that is supposed to be more environmentally friendly than the present diesel and electric engines.

Mr. Stern

I remind my hon. Friend that development is not all one way. Recently, an experimental engine caught fire at Bristol Parkway station in my constituency. However, he is right: development is continuing.

The Bill will be useful in preserving not only our historic heritage—since the great days of iron—but our modern heritage. It will enable people to track the progress of the industry. I do not wish to challenge the Labour party in this regard because I am aware that the Bill has proceeded with all-party support and I do not want to upset that, but I shall refer to the privatisation process—something that I fully support.

Since being elected to this place in 1983, I have been a regular traveller on British Rail between London and Bristol. It has been a source of considerable regret to me that, over that period the train trip has got slower and the timetable has accommodated the increasing slowness of the trains. Between 1983 and 1996, the minimum journey time between London and Bristol Parkway has increased by one third—which is quite a lot. When I was first elected, the fastest train between London and Bristol Parkway took 59 minutes; until recently, the fastest train took one hour and 20 minutes.

I was therefore somewhat surprised when I received a letter from a constituent who asked me to deplore the fact that train travel times have increased by 15 minutes between London and Bristol Parkway since privatisation. I looked up my previous correspondence with the constituent and discovered that he has made it clear on a number of occasions that he is an active member of the Labour party. The reverse is actually the case: at that stage, there had been no change in the timetable since privatisation.

Recently, I was particularly delighted to receive a timetable from the newly privatised Great Western. For the first time since I have been a Member of Parliament— and, I believe, longer than that—the times of trains, and achieved times of trains, between London and Bristol have come down. New and more convenient trains have been timetabled and, for the first time in my memory, the journey time has been reduced. That is not the only thing that has been achieved in this area. Shortly after privatisation, Great Western announced considerably improved conditions and pay for the staff of the newly franchised railway. For the first time in my memory, improved conditions were achieved without a strike.

I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome to contact the Railway Heritage Committee to ensure that we adequately preserve records, on paper, of what British Rail was achieving before privatisation—I refer to timetables, rule books and wage structures. We will then see the progress that has started with Great Western—and that will continue. We will rebuild the sort of railway that many of us believe is possible.

Mr. Robinson

I am delighted to give my hon. Friend that assurance. I have a funny feeling that a member of the Railway Heritage Committee may be listening to him right now.

Mr. Stern

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that assurance.

Mr. Patrick Thompson (Norwich, North)

My hon. Friend has referred to the improved wage structures that have been introduced post franchise, post privatisation. To what extent have they been reported in local or other newspapers so that people are aware of them?

Mr. Stern

I regret that good news about the railways rarely achieves reported status. I should like to pay tribute to one of my local newspapers, however, the "Northavon Gazette", which has reported in full my comments about the improved wage structures and timetables. Nevertheless, the problem is that, after the barrage—some may say farrago—of publicity about the privatisation process, many people are still finding it difficult to believe that we are moving into an era of improved railway services for passengers and staff. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to hammer away on those improvements to ensure that people understand the direction in which the industry is going.

That neatly brings me to my second point. As a result of boundary changes, a new area, Patchway, will be added to the Bristol, North-West constituency at the next general election. As I hope to continue to represent the constituency then, I have considered some of the problems associated with the area. I have discovered that it has its own railway station on a branch line, but that that branch line has suffered a long history of neglect in terms of the effects of timetabling. When I queried the successor to British Rail how the pattern of services has changed in recent years to accommodate local demand, I was somewhat surprised to find that, but for a couple of years back, no timetables were readily available to enable the current management to compare the services it is now offering with those on offer a few years ago. That is deplorable.

How can we expect ordinary people, parish councils and district councils to play the part open to them to help the railways to improve their service unless full, accurate records are available of what was previously provided as a supposedly adequate service? They could then make a comparison. That is my second reason for welcoming my hon. Friend's Bill. I hope that it will enable students of the railway and people with an interest in the railway as a service to the public to chart progress by reference to detailed timetables and detailed usage patterns. With such information, people will be able to persuade the future, more modern management of the railway of the public demand for services, including the reintroduction of those that were once on offer. For that reason, I thoroughly commend my hon. Friend's Bill to the House.

1.48 pm
Mr. Sproat

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) on taking the Bill thus far through Parliament. The piloting of a Private Member's Bill is made to look easy when it is done with such elegance and neatness as that displayed by my hon. Friend, but it is extremely complicated. I congratulate him on his mastery of a complex subject and on taking a necessary Bill through the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) mentioned the late Robert Adley, who was a real character in the House and who certainly knew more about the railways than anyone this side of the British Railways Board. I was glad to hear that his wife, Jane, whom I have also met, is now living in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West mentioned the concept of the museum of the British empire in Bristol. It is a tremendous idea. The British empire and railways go together naturally. Not only will the empire museum be housed, if all goes well, in the old Brunel sheds, but one can hardly go anywhere in the third world or what used to be the British empire without finding old railways built in 1925 and still going strong, or old station hotels, such as that in Kuala Lumpur, resonant with imperial echoes. We now return to the Bill.

I am deputising for the Minister of State, Department of Transport. I am pleased to do so. He is an exceptionally good Minister, who has done me a good turn on a matter in which you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have a common interest—the Wakefield mining museum, for which he has agreed a signpost.

I have a personal interest in this matter, because one of my predecessors as Member of Parliament for Harwich was the first person ever to be killed by a railway train, before which he was carelessly walking with a red flag when the railway was being opened—Mr. William Huskisson.

I find myself with a rather more personal interest in the Bill than I had first expected. As a boy, I used to hold out the hoop at railway stations. Hon. Members may remember that one put one's hand through the hoop and the driver caught it. I went out of my way to collect the hoop in the old metal tablet.

It is especially on behalf of the Department of National Heritage that I am grateful to be here because, as the Minister responsible for the national railway museum, I am pleased to speak for a measure that will ensure that the museum remains a haven of excellence and international repute in the conservation of railway heritage.

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome about the museum's work. In addition to the splendour of Queen Adelaide's coach, built in 1842, and the famous Mallard—I often saw it as a boy, and travelled in the train pulled by the old streamliner—which held the world steam record, there are many fascinating engineering drawings and artefacts, such as station plates.

One of the difficult aspects of working at the Department of National Heritage is that some people assume that heritage is a dry matter, concerned with the past and not remotely concerned with the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West correctly said that that is very far from the case, and indicated a few ways in which we should be keeping up with artefacts, as it were, that are being created today that would be valuable in future.

There are few areas in which the misconception of dry and dusty matter is more of a misconception than railway heritage. Historic railway records can be surprisingly relevant to the running of the railway today. I understand that the Brunel era drawings, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome alluded, are still used as working drawings. I also noted the extraordinary story in The Times saying that steam engines are more environmentally friendly than diesel. That shows that there is more than heritage interest in what my hon. Friend proposes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned the lottery and the national heritage memorial fund. Of course the scope of the Bill does not extend to increasing the criteria on the basis of which lottery funding can be delivered, but my Department does intend, at a suitable opportunity and as soon as possible, to introduce legislation to extend the powers of the national heritage memorial fund regarding the lottery to make a wider range of projects and recipients eligible. That could encompass those to which my hon. Friend alluded.

I wholeheartedly join my hon. Friend in applauding the work of the Railway Heritage Committee. It is an independent committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Gordon Higginson, and consists of other eminent persons from the Railway Heritage Movement and the railway industry. It was set up under the Railways Act 1993 to ensure that railway artefacts and records of historic significance go to the appropriate collecting institution at the end of their useful lives and become available to a wider public. In addition to the designations that my hon. Friend mentioned, I understand that the Railway Heritage Committee has done much work on setting criteria for future designations and directions, which have been pored over in Committee.

The committee's powers under the 1993 Act extended to the British Railways Board and the new public sector bodies that were to be created under the restructuring process. Now many of the board's successors are entering the private sector and so leaving the scope of existing provisions, which necessitates new arrangements.

The committee as a whole, and its members as individuals, welcome the Bill. I understand that they have been consulted and their views carefully considered throughout the drafting process. In particular, the head of the national railway museum, Mr. Andrew Scott, who is a member of the committee, strongly welcomes the provisions in the Bill as they will help to ensure that the museum's leading role in the preservation of important historical railway material will continue.

I am pleased that the Bill recognises the need to balance the interests of the railway heritage community and the railway industry. That should enable all parties to work co-operatively to ensure that primary sources for future historians are not lost.

As my hon. Friend has noted, the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the committee. I am sure that it would be helpful to the House if I explained the purpose of the guidance. Private sector owners of designated records and artefacts must have a right to compensation at market value if the committee directs disposal of those items. It is quite likely that, in many cases, the owners will waive that right in the interests of their public image, but they must have that right.

On the other hand, 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 free or for a nominal charge.

It would be wrong to obstruct that mutually beneficial arrangement between the board and the collecting institutions, but as hon. Members will be aware we could hardly make one provision for the public sector and another for the private sector in the Bill. The guidance will deal with that problem.

Hon. Members may be wondering how the market value compensation for private sector owners will be calculated. That will be done by agreement between the owner and the collecting institution. Of course, there will be disagreements from time to time. The outline guidance provides for recourse to arbitration in that event. If the parties failed to agree on an arbiter, the president of the Institute of Arbiters will be asked to choose one. The guidance will also assist the committee in drafting directions.

I must stress that we have absolutely no intention of undermining the committee's independence by giving guidance on designation or direction criteria, or on particular designations or directions. 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. I can confirm that the guidance will be published and that copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

I believe that my hon. Friend's Bill will help significantly in the preservation of railway artefacts and records and so will benefit railway industry and railway heritage interests and the public. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Back to