Railways Bill

HL Deb 19 October 1993 vol 549 cc506-62

3.29 p.m.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(The Earl of Caithness.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 86 [Transfer to the Secretary of State or the. Franchising Director of the Board's function of making transfer schemes]:

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 218:

Page 98, line 14, at end insert:

("() Where the Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him in subsection (1) above, directs the Board to secure the disposal of any subsidiary of the Board principally concerned with the transport of goods, he shall, prior to the disposal taking place, consider the environmental and economic consequences of the goods hitherto conveyed by the subsidiary being conveyed instead by road vehicles.

() If, following the consideration referred to in subsection () above, the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the environmental and economic consequences of the goods referred to in subsection () above being conveyed by road are unacceptable, he may make it a condition of disposal that the persons acquiring control of the subsidiary shall continue for the relevant period to use railway services for the movement of goods as far as reasonably practicable to the same extent as applied prior to the disposal.

() In this section, "the relevant period" means the period beginning with the date of the disposal and ending on the second anniversary of the disposal.

() In this section, "goods" includes mail, parcels, animals, plants and any other creature, substance or thing capable of being transported, but does not include passengers.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is a modified version of an amendment which was debated and withdrawn at Committee stage. The original amendment would have required that any privatised freight or parcels subsidiary should continue to use rail for all traffic for five years so far as is reasonably practical. The new version requires the Secretary of State to consider the environmental and economic consequences of traffic transferring to roads. It then gives him the'option to require the traffic to continue to be conveyed by rail, but limits the duration of that requirement to two years.

The Government's long-standing commitment to the outright sale of British Rail's freight and parcels businesses was clarified in May with the publication of a detailed set of proposals. The existing Trainload Freight subsidiary, responsible for over 80 per cent. of total freight revenue based on moving full trainloads of commodities from private siding to private siding, will be restructured together with the Contract Services Division of Railfreight Distribution into three regionally-based freight companies. If the Bill goes through, they will be sold outright.

The amendment concerns the economic and environmental consequences of rail freight traffic being diverted to the roads, and the consequences of 3.6 million loaded wagons and 122 million tonnes of traffic no longer being carried by rail. The fact is that Clause 86 of the Railways Bill, as drafted, does not provide any guarantee that the privatised freight and parcels companies will continue to use the railways at all. There is nothing to prevent these companies being acquired by existing road hauliers who could promptly move the former British Rail traffic by road and liquidate the rail assets.

I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to the matter and accept the amendment. It does not interfere with the market forces any more than other parts of the Bill. After all, passenger train franchisees will not be permitted under the terms of their franchises to substitute buses and taxis for trains. The amendment is also flexible, recognising that not every single rail cargo should forever and a day continue to be moved by rail. Its great merit is, I believe, that it provides a degree of protection for the economy and the environment during what everyone accepts will be a difficult period of transition from the existing British Rail control to privatisation. I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we have given very "serious consideration"—to use his words—to the amendment. The reason is that there is no difference between what he and the Government want; we both appreciate the importance of freight. However, the difference between us comes in the way that we wish to achieve the possibilities that we believe freight traffic can offer to the railways and to increase it. That is why we have produced a package of measures, including new and revised grant schemes introduced by the Bill, to encourage more traffic on to rail where that makes commercial and environmental sense.

However, keeping freight on rail means providing attractive, affordable services which can pay their way. That is why we are introducing a fundamental reform of the rail freight industry. First, we are completely opening up the railway network to new rail freight companies, allowing unfettered competition for the first time.

Secondly, we are wholly privatising the BR trainload freight operations—as viable business entities—in a new, competitive structure. The trainload businesses are being reshaped into three new companies which will compete with each other from their regional heartlands, while continuing to fulfil their existing contractual obligations. Those three new businesses will start operations next year, and we expect them to be sold in 1995. We also have exciting plans for the containerised services run by BR, which are currently under discussion with a number of private sector operators. And not least, we hope to announce in the very near future some excellent news for the carriage of mail by rail.

In the light of all those developments, I do not believe that we should sell the rail freight industry short by suggesting that it needs artificial safeguards in order to protect its position. That is really a recipe for stagnation and inefficiency. Our aim in privatising rail freight is to enhance its long-term prospects. Rail freight has undergone a prolonged period of decline—both here and in Europe—while in public ownership. That is why, from all the evidence of the past, we believe that the way to keep freight on rail is by injecting private sector capital and talent and not by statute or restrictive covenants.

Thus, although in principle I very much agree with the aim of what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, sought to do—which is to get more traffic on to rail—we believe that we are going about it in a different way from that suggested in the amendment.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his long explanation. I shall read it in Hansard with great care. I thought that we were trying to be helpful by giving the Government a breathing space in the transition. I am not sure that I completely agree with the Minister when he says that the transport of goods by rail has been a total failure

throughout Europe, or has been disappointing throughout Europe. The figures which I gave come from the Government and are last year's statistics: 3.6 million loaded wagons and 122 million tonnes of traffic would travel on the roads immediately or fairly quickly. It could happen, because the road haulage industry is not having a good time just now, and it could be absolutely disastrous.

I am sorry that the Minister is not taking the breathing space, but I shall read his helpful speech in Hansard. We may even get another chance to consider it. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 87 [Transfers of shares of certain companies: provisions supplemental to sections 83 to 86]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 219:

Page 99, line 13, leave out ("shares of') and insert ("interests in").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 219 and, with the leave of the House, speak to Amendments Nos. 220 to 223, 246, 247, 258, 301 and 310 to 313 inclusive.

These amendments serve two main purposes. First, they widen the definition of the term "company", as used in the Bill and make consequential and related technical changes. They will bring the definition of "company" into line with that of "body corporate" in the Companies Act 1985, so as to include companies other than those limited by shares and registered under the Act—for example, unlimited companies and companies limited by guarantee.

Secondly, they amend the definition of "securities", bringing it into line with that in the Financial Services Act 1986. I commend the amendments to your Lordships and beg to move Amendment No. 219.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 220 to 223:

Page 99, line 22, leave out ("shares or) and insert ("interests in").

Page 99, line 31, leave out ("shares of') and insert ("interests in").

Page 99, line 37, leave out ("shares of') and insert ("interests in").

Page 99, line 44, leave out ("shares") and insert ("interests").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 88 [Disposals by the Board and its subsidiaries]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 224:

Page 100, line 26, at end insert:

(5) In section 27 of the Transport Act 1962, in subsection (4) (which provides that the Secretary of State may direct the Board and the British Waterways Board to discontinue any of their activities, dispose of any part of their undertaking, dispose of any assets held by them, call in any loan made by them or exercise any power they may possess to revoke any guarantees given by them) the words "dispose of any part of their undertaking, dispose of any assets held by them" shall cease to have effect in so far as relating to the Board ").

The noble Earl 'said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 224 and, with the leave of the House, speak to Amendment No. 225 at the same time. The amendments remove powers conferred on the Secretary of State by Section 27 of the Transport Act 1962. These powers have been superseded by others contained in Clauses 88 and 89 of the Bill. I commend Amendment No. 224 to your Lordships.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Wade of Chorlton moved Amendment No. 224A:

After Clause 88, insert the following new clause:

("Disposal of railway land

—(1) Where any party falling within section 84(1) paragraphs (a) to (e) or any franchise company proposes to dispose of or lease property currently or previously required for the operation of a railway service for purposes not connected with the operation of the railway, that party shall first offer that property for sale to all County, Regional, District, Metropolitan District or London Borough Councils and Passenger Transport Executives for the areas within which that property lies for use for transport purposes at a price reflecting its value for that use.

(2) If during a period of ten years following such a purchase, the purchasing authority disposes of the land for use other than for transport purposes, the said authority shall compensate the previous owner of the land or its successor in respect of any additional value realised by that authority on disposal).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 224A seeks to do two things: first, to ensure that, should Railtrack no longer wish to operate a particular rail line, it would make that rail available to one of the local authorities at its transport value.

The second part of the amendment seeks to make sure that in the event that that were to happen, Railtrack. would not lose the benefit of any increased value of the development that might take place on the line. I know that was an issue with which the Minister was concerned when I raised it earlier. Under the amendment, in the event that within 10 years the local authority put development on the line which would be over and above the transport value of the line, the value would go hack: to Railtrack.

I am a great supporter of the Bill. One of the advantages which I see is the economic improvement that it can bring, particularly to rural areas. I can see it opening up economic possibilities in rural areas which are badly needed. One can already see opportunities to redevelop disused rail lines—I use "redevelop", not in the sense of putting a supermarket on them, but in the sense of road use and giving access to areas which otherwise might not have it. But even under the Bill they could be taken over and could do things which, under the present system, it is not possible for them to do. In other words, it will be possible for the local authority to stimulate local investment because of a particular need.

I hope that my noble friend will give the issue serious attention. I believe that it will bring considerable benefit to certain local areas. It is wrong to anticipate that, if a line is no longer being used by Railtrack, it should immediately demand its full potential alternative value for development. I can give a number of examples where rail lines are no longer possible merely because somebody has extended a garden into the track and the value of the garden—or what people are prepared to pay for that little piece of land is greater than might be the overall transport value when it is closed. It seems to me quite wrong that we should take out whole sectors of line which offer great opportunities for the future just for the sake of such small considerations in order to get an immediate gain.

I hope that noble Lords will support this amendment and that my noble friend will give it every possible consideration. It appears to me, on the evidence that I get, that in order to make these things happen the idea needs to be on the face of the Bill. It will not happen, and there will be no incentive for Railtrack other than to demand these very high development prices, unless some attention is given by government to dealing with the matter. I beg to move.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Lords, in supporting my noble friend Lord Wade in this amendment, I should like to thank the Minister for his time and trouble in dealing with this question in response to my noble friend and myself during the Recess. I hope that his reply will be as reassuring as were his previous ones to me on various other points in the Bill.

As my noble friend said, the amendment would allow local authorities to take an active role in, for instance, keeping alive a possibly redundant line. As I have said to my noble friend before, local authorities feel—wrongly, I agree—that they have not been given the chance to keep such lines open or indeed use them, as my noble friend said, for other forms of transport. I hope that my noble friend will take particular note of the second part of this amendment which would prevent the local authority making a profit which should rightly belong to Railtrack. That point worried my noble friend at Committee stage.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, I have not intervened before in the debate on this Bill. I have tried to concentrate on only one or two matters in the whole passage of parliamentary business. But I was approached by Surrey County Council, and then got in touch with Cheshire County Council, which is leading the plea for this proposal. I was sufficiently convinced that it was an extremely sensible idea. I am almost certain that, before the invention of county councils, when the railways were being built, the lords lieutenant and the magistracy were certainly consulted. That was when the original Bills on the construction of the railways went through. Without that consultation, the construction could not take place. Local authorities have an interest in specific social aspects of transport. That interest should be built into the Act rather than merely an undertaking being given by the head of Railtrack that it will be taken account of. It is possible that under these circumstances local authorities could make a better shot at running a certain amount of transport for what we all admit will be social needs, especially in rural areas, than somebody stuck in London who is head of Railtrack and who will have different pressures upon him. This is an eminently sensible and diverse proposal to put into the Bill, and a thoroughly "Conservative" one, in the best sense of the word.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I support the amendment. It is quite clear that rail tracks that appear to be derelict can be used for transport purposes for some considerable time in certain circumstances; or indeed, there may be a period when there is no real need for the track, either for busways or for light rapid transit uses, but some years later that need may develop. I think of the way in which the Manchester light rapid transport system has developed. In the days when I was a small schoolboy I used to catch the Bury train into Victoria station, then go across and catch a tram. That rail line became very nearly derelict. It has now been totally rejuvenated and one can take the light rapid transit system from where I used to get on and travel right the way through the centre of Manchester and out the other side. That would not have been possible if someone had been allowed to build some quite small property on that stretch of line. It does not need to be a huge construction such as some great supermarket, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said. The noble Lord perhaps slightly exaggerated when he said that it just needs someone to extend their garden; it needs to be a bit more than that. If someone decides to do a bit of "spec" building at just one point on the line, it can damage a whole future development of something like a light rapid transit system.

Other possible uses could be encouraged at proper values; for example, cycle tracks. Certainly if people are having to pay full property value, local authorities simply could not afford to do that. There is much to commend this amendment. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to it, even if they cannot accept it in this form. We need something on the face of the Bill to preserve these tracks.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, I rise to support this amendment and to give one or two examples of the possibilities which I believe it would open up. Let us start with specialised routes for buses or coaches. Then there is a totally unsatisfied demand, at least in the South West of England, for bridleways for horse riders, who are exposed to considerable dangers if they are forced to use public roads.

I can quote an example between the cities of Bristol and Bath, where a disused railway has been used very successfully as a cycle track. It enables cyclists to go from the one city to the other during a rush hour somewhat faster than they could if they made the journey by car. I hope that the Government will look at this amendment seriously.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which my noble friend Lord Wade introduced the amendment. It is true, as my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley said, that there has been considerable discussion of this matter between Committee stage and today.

I believe it would be helpful if I set out the present position. I think it would be particularly helpful to my noble friend Lord Onslow and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. At the moment the BR Property Board offers local authorities first refusal on surplus non-operational land. The price BR asks reflects the commercial development opportunities. Where planning authorities and development plans have identified surplus railway land for transport purposes, the price obtained by BR—and in future Rai1track—will reflect the planning situation and the possibility of compulsory purchase for transport use. In effect, such land will be sold at its transport value rather than at the price it would have commanded had there been no planning constraint on development.

I accept that it is not always possible for local authorities to identify redundant land sufficiently in advance to enable continuing transport use to be backed up by planning policy. Where that is the case, local authorities must negotiate market prices with BR.

The amendment in the name of my noble friends Lord Wade of Chorlton and Lord Stanley of Alderley would change that position by granting local authorities and PTEs a right to buy the land at transport value, irrespective of its potential for other development purposes. While I am sympathetic to the reasons behind the amendment, the Government do not see any intrinsic reason why local authorities should be given preferential treatment on the basis of possible future transport use instead of unlocking other possibly more valuable development potential. We are not persuaded that there should be this fundamental shift away from market prices for railway land acquisitions by local authorities. The interests of local authorities have to be weighed against the objectives given to BR—and Railtrack in future—to maximise property receipts to the benefit of the taxpayer.

We have considered whether the clawback provision proposed in subsection (2) of my noble friends' amendment would satisfy our concerns. I have discussed that point with my noble friends. The compensation provision would benefit BR or its successor only if there was, within 10 years, a disposal for purposes other than transport purposes and a resulting development gain. I have to say that the Government are not persuaded that the potential benefit of selling the land at market price should have to be put on ice, as it were, for a period of 10 years. The onus must surely be on the local planning authority to decide at the outset whether the land warrants its allocation for transport purposes, and for the value of the land to be determined in the light of that decision.

The arrangements for the disposal of surplus railway land have generally worked well. There are numerous examples of local authorities acquiring redundant lines for such use as road"; or footpaths. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, gave an example, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I too would like to give an example and a recent one at that; namely., the opening of the "Cuckoo Trail" in East Sussex. The trail has been developed on the trackbed of the former railway line from Polegate to Heathfield, which closed in stages during the 1960s. The trackbed was bought by Wealden District Council to provide a safe route for walkers and cyclists. Other examples include the Tissington and High Peak Trails set up similarly by the Peak District National Park. In addition, railway preservation societies have of course restored many miles of redundant line for renewed railway use. At the same time, the disposal procedures have avoided unnecessarily freezing land use.

I believe the record will show that BR will go to considerable lengths to keep redundant lines intact. When it sees any prospect of using the trackbed for public transport it pursues the prospect. There is no wanton disregard by BR when there is a prospect of continuing transport use within a given time. We believe that there is no reason why the system should not work equally well after privatisation. I for one hope that redundant lines can find continuing transport use.

I was taken by a comment made by my noble friend Lord Stanley who said that local authorities want an active role. Local authorities already have that active role. It has worked well. I believe that it is right that they should continue to have that active role. But the onus must be on them to consider in good time their transport policies and what they wish to do in the event of a line becoming redundant. At the present time they have the first refusal. Surely they ought to make the very best of that opportunity—as they have done in the past—without freezing the entire system.

The Earl of Kinnoull

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he say whether British Rail has the right to impose a restrictive covenant on a sale of land, because that would cover the point in subsection (2)?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, as I understand it, BR can put on restrictive covenants. My noble friend is a surveyor and a more active surveyor than I am at the moment. Doubtless he would be more aware of the exact situation than I am. I can say that under the present position the local authorities have first refusal of surplus non-operational land. Provided that the local authorities have got their act together, there should not be a problem.

Lord Wade of Chorlton

My Lords, first let me thank all my noble friends who supported me and other noble Lords around the House for supporting the amendment. Obviously I am disappointed that the Minister could not take the matter a little further. I am grateful for the attention that he has given to the amendment and for the fact that he is sympathetic to what we are trying to achieve. I shall study his remarks in detail. Perhaps he will allow me the opportunity for further discussion with him before the next stage. I thank noble Lords very much and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 89 [Directions to the Board about the exercise of rights conferred by holdings in companies]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 225:

Page 100, line 39, at end insert:

("(4) Subsection (5) of that section (which provides that the Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Board, direct the Board to exercise control over a subsidiary of the Board so as to require the subsidiary to discontinue any of their activities, dispose of any part of their undertaking, dispose of any assets held by them, call in any loan made by them or exercise any power they may possess to revoke any guarantees given by them) shall cease to have effect so far as relating to the Board.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 90 [Transfer schemes: general]:

Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 226:

Page 101, line 1, after ("all") insert ("(or all but so much as may be excepted) of').

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendments Nos. 232 and 234 to 238 at the same time.

Government Amendment No. 226 is of a minor technical nature and is intended to improve the way in which transfer schemes made under the Bill operate. It enables a transfer scheme which defines the property, rights and liabilities to be transferred by reference to all the property, rights and liabilities comprised in a specified part of the transferor's undertaking to exempt from the transfer such property, rights and liabilities (if any) as is specified.

Amendments Nos. 232 and 234 to 238 are all minor and technical amendments to Schedule 7. I commend this group of amendments to the House. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 227:

Page 101, line 26, leave out subsection (4) and insert:

("(4) No right of reverter, right of pre-emption, right of forfeiture, right of re-entry, option or similar right affecting land shall operate or become exercisable as a result of any transfer of land

1. (a) by virtue of a transfer scheme;
2. (b) by or, under an agreement or instrument made or executed pursuant to any provision of Schedule 7 to this Act or pursuant to any directions given, or requirement imposed, under that Schedule; or
3. (c) pursuant to an obligation imposed by a provision included in a transfer scheme by virtue of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) above;

and, without prejudice to paragraph 9 of Schedule 7 to this Act, any such right or option shall accordingly have effect in the case of any such transfer as if the transferee in relation to that transfer were the same person in law as the transferor and as if no transfer of the land had taken place.

(5) Subsection (4) above shall have effect in relation to

1. (a) the grant or creation of an estate or interest in, or right over, land, or
2. (b) the doing of any other thing in relation to land, as it has effect in relation to a transfer of land; and any reference in that subsection or in the following provisions of this section to the transferor or the transferee shall be construed accordingly.

(6) In any case where

1. (a) any such right or option as is mentioned in subsection (4) above would, apart from that subsection, have operated in favour of, or become exercisable by, a person, but
2. (b) the circumstances are such that, in consequence of the operation of that subsection, the right or option cannot subsequently operate in favour of that person or, as the case may be, become exercisable by him,

such compensation as may be just shall be paid to him by the transferor or the transferee (or by both) in respect of the extinguishment of the right or option.

(7) Any dispute as to whether any, and (if so) how much, compensation is payable under subsection (6) above, or as to the person to or by whom it shall be paid, shall be referred to and determined by

1. (a) an arbitrator appointed by the President for the time being of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; or
2. (b) where the proceedings are to be held in Scotland, an arbiter appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session; or
3. (c) where the proceedings are to be held in Northern Ireland, an arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chancellor.

(8) If it appears to the transferor that a person is or may be entitled to compensation under subsection (6) above, he shall

1. (a) notify that person that he is or may be so entitled, and
2. (b) invite him to make such representations as he wishes to the transferor not later than fourteen days after the date of issue of the document containing the notification required by paragraph (a) above,

or, if the transferor is not aware of the name and address of the person concerned, shall publish, in such manner as he considers appropriate, a notice containing information about the interest affected and inviting any person who thinks that he is or may be entitled to compensation to make such representations to the transferor within such period (being not less than 28 days from the date of publication of the notice) as may be specified in the notice.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendment No. 239 at the same time.

Amendment No. 227 is essentially technical. It replaces the whole of subsection (4) of Clause 90 with five new subsections. The aim is to prevent the transfer of property required for the smooth course of privatisation being prevented by latent conditions or options which might otherwise be triggered by the transfer. We wish to ensure that rights of reverter, rights of pre-emption, options and any similar rights affecting land, whether they be granted under a lease or otherwise, which are triggered either directly or indirectly by a transfer scheme do not defeat the transfer. We consider that such rights should be held in abeyance during, but not extinguished by, such transfers.

Amendment No. 239 amends paragraph 15 of Schedule 7, which deals with third parties who are affected by vesting provisions, so that, if it appears to the transferor that a person is or may be entitled to compensation under paragraph 15(3), the transferor must notify that person accordingly and invite him to make representations. Where the names and addresses of such persons are not known, provision is made for public notices to be published.

I hope that noble Lords will accept these amendments. I beg to move.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I want to raise with the noble Viscount a very short point. In both Amendments Nos. 227 and 239 there is provision made of a comparable kind. Perhaps the noble Viscount would look at subsection (8). He will see that representations have to be made, not later than fourteen days after the date of issue of the document containing the notification". In the subsequent paragraph but still under subsection (8) where the situation arises that somebody may not be traced, a longer period of 28 days for the notice is provided. Having regard to the fact that these provisions could cover quite complicated issues requiring detailed advice, does the noble Viscount agree that 14 days is somewhat inadequate? On reflection should not the period have been 21 days? I have no complaint about the 28 days in the subsequent paragraph.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments on the amendments, particularly with regard to the time-frame. But, even considering the various complications of the issue, we consider that 14 days would be appropriate.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, can he say why there is such a disparity between the two areas covered by these provisions-14 days in one and 28 days in the other? Would not 21 days have been a better period to enable people to take the complex, technical and legal advice or other advice that is required? On the face of it, 14 days seems to be somewhat short. I shall not press the point but I should like the Minister either to explain it or at least to write to me about it if he is not in a position to explain it at the moment.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, I note the comments made by the noble Lord. We have considered each of the cases that he raised on its merits. We consider that the time frame allocated to the various different situations is appropriate for that particular situation.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, could he share his secret with me? On what basis does he feel that 14 days is an appropriate time-frame?

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, all I can do to help the noble Lord is to re-emphasise that the allocations of time have been set as regards the various problems that have to be resolved within those time-frames. It is our advice and our belief that those time-frames are appropriate for what has to be done within those time-frames.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, before my noble friend finally resumes his seat, perhaps he will deal with the point as to whether 14 days is an adequate time if that period happens to fall over a public holiday. Ordinarily speaking, during the working year, 14 days is no doubt satisfactory. If, however, it went over the August Bank Holiday, it would not leave many days for action to be taken.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He makes an interesting point which we have noted and will consider.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

4 p.m.

Clause 92 [Employment]:

Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 228:

Leave out Clause 9'2 and insert the following new clause: Assignment of employees to particular parts of undertakings

("—(1) Schemes may be made

1. (a) assigning such qualifying employees, or qualifying employees of such a class or description, as may be specified in the scheme to such part of their employer's undertaking as may be so specified;
2. (b) modifying the terms and conditions of employment of those employees; and
3. (c) providing for the payment of compensation to any of those employees by his employer in respect of any overall detriment incurred by the employee in consequence of any modifications made by the scheme to his terms and conditions of employment.

(2) A scheme shall be made only for the purpose of facilitating, or otherwise in contemplation of, or in connection with,

1. (a) the disposal of the undertaking, or part of the undertaking, of the Board or of a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board;
2. (b) the transfer, by virtue of a transfer scheme, of any property, rights or liabilities 518
   1. (i) from the Board or a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board to any such subsidiary or to a publicly owned railway company or a company wholly owned by the Franchising Director; or
   2. (ii) from a company wholly owned by the Franchising Director to another such company;
3. (c) the provision of railway passenger services, or the operation of additional railway assets, under a franchise agreement, in circumstances where a previous franchise agreement relating to the provision of those services or the operation of those assets comes, or has come, to an end;
4. (d) the performance of any duty imposed on the Franchising Director by any provision of Part 1 above to secure—
   1. (i) the provision of any railway passenger services;
   2. (ii) the operation of any network or part of a network;
   3. (iii) the operation of any station or fight maintenance depot, or any part Of a station or light maintenance depot; or
5. (e) the exercise of the power conferred on the Franchising Director by section 28 above to secure the operation of any additional railway assets.

(3) The power to make a scheme shall be exercisable

1. (a) by the Board, in respect of employees of the Board or of any wholly owned subsidiary of the Board; or
2. (b) by the Franchising Director, in respect of employees of any company which is wholly owned by the Franchising Director.

(4) Where a scheme modifies the terms and conditions of employment of any person, the person's terms and conditions of employment after the modification takes effect must overall, and taking account of the amount or value of any compensation payable to him by virtue of subsection (1) (c) above in respect of any such detriment as is there mentioned, be no less favourable to him than his terms and conditions of employment before the modification takes effect.

(5) The duty imposed on an employer by section 4 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (requirement for written statement in respect of certain changes relating to an employee's employment) shall extend to all of the modifications made by a scheme to a qualifying employee's terms and conditions of employment, as if those modifications were changes required to be dealt with in a written statement under that section.

(6) If any qualifying employee whose terms and conditions of employment are modified by a scheme is aggrieved

1. at the provisions made by the scheme with respect to the payment of compensation, so far as applicable in his case, or
2. at the fact that the scheme does not make any such provision,

he may make a written complaint to the maker of the scheme not later than twelve weeks after the date of issue of the written statement required by section 4 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 in consequence of the modifications made by the scheme in the qualifying employee's terms and conditions of employment.

(7) Any complaint under subsection (6) above shall be referred to, and determined by, such arbitrator as may be agreed by the qualifying employee and the person to whom the complaint was made or, at the request of either of them, by a panel of three arbitrators appointed by the Secretary of State and consisting of—

1. (a)a person who appears to the Secretary of State to be representative of employers in the railway industry;
2. (b)a person who appears to the Secretary of State to be representative of employees in the railway industry; and
3. (c)an independent chairman.

(8) A scheme may make such incidental, consequential, supplemental or transitional provision as appears necessary or expedient to the person making the scheme.

(9) A scheme may make different provision for different qualifying employees or for qualifying employees of different classes or descriptions.

(10) A scheme shall not come into force unless it has been approved by the Secretary of State or until such date as the Secretary of State may, after consultation with the maker of the scheme, specify for the purpose in giving his approval.

(11) In the application of this section in relation to Scotland, any reference to an arbitrator shall be taken as a reference to an arbiter.

(12) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland, for any reference to section 4 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 there shall be substituted a reference to section 4(4) to (6B) of the Contracts of Employment and Redundancy Payments Act (Northern Ireland) 1965.

(13) In this section—

"qualifying employee", in the case of any scheme, means a person who, immediately before the coming into force of that scheme—

1. (a) is an employee of—
   1. (i) the Board;
   2. (ii) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board; or
   3. (iii) a company which is wholly owned by the Franchising Director; and
2. (b) is not assigned solely to duties in that part of his employer's undertaking to which he is, or is to be, assigned by that scheme;

"scheme" means a scheme under this section;

and expressions used in this section and in Part I above have the same meaning in this section as they have in that Part.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 228 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 233 and 314.

These amendments considerably amplify the employment protection measures in the Bill. Amendment No. 314 makes clear that the operation of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—TUPE—in respect of transfers of undertakings made under the Bill are not affected by any provision of the Bill. Noble Lords will know that TUPE was recently amended by Section 33 of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993. As a consequence the references in the present Clause 92(1) of the Bill—which applies TUPE—to undertakings which are not of a commercial nature are rendered redundant.

We have discovered, however, that there are a number of people employed by BR who are not wholly employed by any of the undertakings into which it is to be divided. We expect that the same problem will arise in future if franchisees are reformed after the first and subsequent round of franchises. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 7 is inadequate to deal with that and Amendment No. 233 therefore deletes it.

I am sure the House will agree that it is most unsatisfactory to leave people in limbo like this. In order to deal with the situation, Amendment No. 228 provides BR or the franchising director, as appropriate, with powers to make schemes which make clear that people belong in one part or another of the organisation.

Finally, Amendment No. 228 also has the effect of removing Clause 92(2) which, in part, conflicts with TUPE, as amended by the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993, and which, in part, has been made redundant by the much more extensive provision in Schedule 10 on pensions.

I commend the amendments to the House. They provide a fair way of protecting the employees of BR and of future franchisees where the employees are being transferred. I beg to move.

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation but I am afraid that it still leaves us feeling rather unhappy. Clause 92, as it originally stood, is quite specific in its reference to the transfer of undertakings regulations and specifically applies them in relation to transfers and so forth.

The Government claim that Clause 92 is no longer necessary although they put it back again in Amendment No. 314. They claim that because of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act it is no longer necessary to have the provision spelt out in Clause 92. On the other hand, from information that I received late this morning from unions active in the area, there is a great deal of suspicion regarding what the Government are actually doing and I must tell the Minister that that is the situation.

The unions are extremely worried by the removal of Clause 92 and its replacement with a further clause which seems to give arrangements whereby individuals can be adversely affected. They say that there is a new power to assign BR employees to new subsidiaries and to modify their terms and conditions of employment. That appears to have been done without any consultation whatever. Moreover, we had the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill before the House as long ago as March and April of this year and the Bill itself became an Act before the Summer Recess. There has therefore been quite a long time for the Government to give thought to the provisions of the Act and how it affected Clause 92.

The new amendment appears to have been produced at an extremely late stage. Perhaps I can explain to the Minister just how suspicious are the employees in the industry. I can do no better than quote a statement handed to me a few moments before the debate began today. It is from the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association, which represents a large number of people in the industry and says, [The] General Secretary of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association reacted angrily to the Government's last minute House of Lords amendment to the Railways Bill which could deprive staff of their rights to retain their current pay and conditions of service once the Railways are privatised. In effect the Government have withdrawn the clause in the Bill, affirming that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1991 would apply to any transfer of staff. Instead they have inserted a rather dubious clause providing for the modifying of the terms and conditions of employment of those employees transferred. … true the clause does include unspecified provision for compensation"— and this is the point— but the Unions were promised in the Government White Paper of July 1992 called 'New Opportunities for the Railways' that (Clause 86) 'The trade unions in the industry will be consulted about matters affecting their members' employment. Employees' rights and terms and conditions of employment will be safeguarded on their transfer to new employment. Concessionary travel arrangements for employees and their dependants and for retired staff will also be safeguarded"'. The statement continues, We are now seeing the Government breaking not only its assurances on the Memorandum of Understanding on pensions but now its assurances on the retention of pay and conditions for staff'. It is important to realise that it is an extremely touchy area. People outside who are watching the progress of the Bill regard with extreme suspicion some of the activities of the Government. The reaction seems to be, "What are they up to now?" That attitude is reinforced when amendments of this kind are introduced at a late stage in the Bill. There appear to be arrangements in the new clauses which allow for people to be transferred and assigned, and for their employment rights not to be adequately protected.

Moreover, I see that the new clause provides for a fairly extensive arbitration process. I have no objection to arbitration arrangements within legislation or within employment; it is all to the good. But as I understand it—I hope that it can be confirmed—the arbitration provisions will not extinguish rights which individuals may have under TUPE and which have to be reaffirmed by the Minister in his reply to the comments I have made today. I repeat that there is a great deal of suspicion regarding what the Government propose in the clause. I hope that some of those fears may be laid to rest in the Government's response.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, this is a sensitive point, as I am sure my noble friend appreciates better than anybody. The fact that at a late stage the provision in the Bill is being changed, apparently fairly substantially, could give rise to what I am sure is a wholly unjustifiable but understandable nervousness. I hope therefore that my noble friend will be able to give us a little reassurance and in particular indicate that between this stage of the Bill's progress and the final stage he will have discussions with the unions concerned and seek to reassure them, thereby leaving open the possibility of a Third Reading amendment—which I do not think will be the case—if there is a necessity for it. I am sure that my noble friend will understand the immense importance of preventing suspicion or nervousness and that the course of action I suggest may make good sense.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, this matter causes considerable anxiety. I am by no means an expert on the subject; the noble Baroness is. Subsection (1) (b) of Amendment No. 228 states, modifying the terms and conditions of employment of those employees". I recognise that that is a serious matter and that it is bound to be viewed with gross suspicion by anyone involved in the industry.

We are up against serious problems with this amendment in terms of the procedures of your Lordships' House. We are now at Report stage. Were we at Committee stage we could discuss this backwards and forwards across the Chamber. Sadly, we cannot do that. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has suggested possible modification at Third Reading. But we know that the House on the whole turns its face against Third Reading amendments of any substantial kind. Perhaps this can be a fine-tuning amendment. Nevertheless, all I am trying to illustrate is the problem that we are faced with by the Government bringing forward amendments of this substantial nature at the Report stage of the Bill. I hope that we can have very substantial reassurance on subsection (1) (b) of Amendment No. 228.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, perhaps I may pursue a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. While it is true that the House might normally turn its face against discussing amendments of great substance in this matter, I am sure that one could depart from precedent in relation to this Bill, a great deal of which has been amended virtually at the eleventh hour. I wish to ask the noble Viscount a few questions. Why did the department not wake up to this issue far earlier? After all, we were discussing these matters in Committee quite a long time ago. It was only on 12th October that this complicated issue was referred to in this amendment, giving the House very little time to be able to digest the issues in question. Why did the Government react so late to a matter of this significance? What consultations did they undertake, particularly with the trade unions concerned, before they introduced it? If they did not consult, why not, in the light of the undertaking that has been given?

I share the broad concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, which are highly germane to the issues that we are currently discussing. I also share the anxieties expressed by my noble friend Lady Turner. I think it right that I should raise those additional points with the Minister. I hope that he can satisfy the House about them.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that this is a very important area, but I hope that I can reassure my noble friend and other noble Lords on the concerns that they expressed.

The point of the amendments is to ensure that TUPE does apply to any transfers of staff not wholly engaged in any one particular undertaking so that their terms and conditions are protected. They should therefore he welcomed by unions because they enhance the protection open to employees. If it were not for the new amendments the conditions might be altered without the protection of TUPE. The arbitration arrangements will certainly not affect employee rights under TUPE. It should be noted that Amendment No. 314 makes it very clear that nothing in the Bill affects the way in which TUPE operates. That is emphasised by the amendment.

To answer the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, some changes may indeed be needed to negotiated employment contracts to achieve this. But where they are needed, the employee must end up in no less favourable a position than he was in before, with payments of compensation if necessary.

I hope that noble Lords will be reassured by the explanation that these amendments enforce the protection afforded to employees by TUPE. There is a particular instance whereby employees might not be covered by TUPE because they are not working for one particular entity. That is the problem that the amendments seek to address. There are some employees in British Rail, for example, who cannot be said to work wholly for any one part of the organisation. The best example is the drivers of the Gatwick Express trains who up to now have spent about 30 per cent. of their time so engaged but drive south-central trains for the rest of the time. It is unclear how a transfer would affect them and it is unclear to the management whether they can legally be transferred to other duties. The main amendment in this group, Amendment No. 228, seeks to deal with that.

I hope that in the light of that explanation noble Lords can be reassured about the benefit of the amendments. I would of course be happy to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, if she would like a meeting before Third Reading, to discuss this further.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, with respect, and by leave of the House, that does not really answer the question about what discussions have taken place already. It seems to me that to include a provision like subsection (1) (b) in Amendment No. 228 without any consultation with the trade unions is bizarre and a recipe for problems. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, it may well me that there is no malice in this, but it is not good industrial relations and it will lead to trouble in the future. Can the Government give us some reassurance that, if they have not discussed this with the trade unions so far, they will get on and do so rather quickly?

4.15 p.m.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that consultations and talks will take place with the unions if they are not satisfied that sufficient talks have already taken place. The important point to note about this group of amendments is that they reinforce the protection open to employees. There is the particular instance whereby some employees might not be covered by TUPE and this raises the point that those employees might be vulnerable. The amendment seeks to cover that gap and provide TUPE protection for the workers who are in that position. It extends—it does not reduce—the coverage of TUPE and therefore I hope that noble Lords will welcome the amendment.

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his lucid explanation. He has put a good many of my fears at rest in regard to the operation of TUPE. I thank him very much for that. On the other hand, there is the consultation point. It is a great pity that this was not taken on board in a consultative manner with the trade unions responsible. I wonder whether it would be possible to enter into consultations or to ensure that consultations take place before Third Reading. The trade unions are extremely concerned. I have read out one letter, but I have had other letters of a similar kind. The trade unions have only just received the text of the amendment and they are suspicious as to what is intended here. I think that it would be enormously helpful if the kind of explanations that have been given to us this afternoon could be conveyed to the unions and their views taken on board. The example of Gatwick Express cited by the Minister is very interesting. Is there any trouble in persuading drivers to take those jobs? It may well be necessary to ensure that people in that situation realise that they have adequate protection. It is quite clear that they do not think that they have it now. I think that something should be done between now and Third Reading.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I thank the noble Baroness for her comment that some of her fears about the amendments have been allayed. I can offer her an undertaking that the Government will meet and consult with the unions between now and another stage.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 93 [Accounting Provisions]:

Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 229:

Page 103, line 47, after ("accumulated") insert ("realised").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendment No. 230 at the same time. These amendments are simply for clarification and are in no way controversial. They ensure that the expression "accumulated losses" is to be read consistently throughout the clause as meaning "accumulated realised losses". With that assurance, I commend the amendments to the House.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 230:

Page 103, line 48, after ("accumulated") insert ("realised").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 94 [Power of the Secretary of State or the Franchising Director to require provision of information in connection with transfer schemes]:

Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 231:

Page 105, line 29, leave out subsection (10).

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 231 to 239 have already been spoken to.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 7 [Transfers by transfer scheme]:

Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 232 to 239:

Page 161, line 30, after ("all") insert ("(or of all but so much as may be excepted) of the").

Page 162, line 42, leave out from ("scheme") to end of line 4 on page 163.

Page 163, line 7, leave out from second ("transfer") to ("made") in line 10 and insert ("by virtue of a transfer scheme").

Page 163, line 22, leave out ("sub-paragraph") and insert ("sub-paragraphs (3A) and").

Page 163, line 23, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 25 and insert ("be transferred and vest in accordance with the agreement.

(3A) Any transfer effected in pursuance of an agreement under sub-paragraph (2) above shall have effect subject to the provisions of any enactment which provides for such transactions to be registered in any statutory register.").

Page 164, line 45, leave out ("(to the extent that the scheme was effective to do so)").

Page 165, line 40, leave out ("persons other than the transferor and the transferee") and insert ("a person other than the transferor or the transferee on the one hand, and the transferor, the transferee or a person claiming under either of them on the other,").

Page 167, line 45, at end insert:

("() If it appears to the transferor that a person is or may be entitled to compensation under sub-paragraph (3) above, he shall

1. notify that person that he is or may be so entitled, and
2. invite him to make such representations as he wishes to the transferor not later than fourteen days after the date of issue of the document containing the notification required by paragraph (a) above,

or, if the transferor is not aware of the name and address of the person concerned, shall publish, in such manner as he considers appropriate, a notice containing information about the interest affected and inviting any person who thinks that he is or may be entitled to compensation to make such representations to the transferor within such period (being not less than 28 days from the date of publication of the notice) as may be specified in the notice.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 97 [Initial share holding in successor companies]:

Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 240 to 245:

Page 106, line 6, leave out from second ("in") to end of line 10 and insert ("a successor company which at the time of the vesting is either—

1. a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board; or
2. Government owned").

Page 106, leave out line 25 and insert ("Government owned").

Page 106, line 28, leave out ("wholly owned by the Crown") and insert ("Government owned").

Page 106, line 32, leave out ("wholly owned by the Crown") and insert ("Government owned").

Page 106, line 35, leave out ("wholly owned by the Crown") and insert ("Government owned").

Page 107, line 3 at end insert:

("() In this section, "Government owned", in relation to any successor company, means wholly owned by the Crown, but not wholly owned by the Franchising Director.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendments Nos. 240 to 245, perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 259. These are again essentially technical amendments. Amendments Nos. 240 to 245 amend Clause 97, which deals with the initial shareholding in successor companies, so as to prevent that clause applying to successor companies wholly owned by the franchising director. We do not think that it is necessary for the Secretary of State to have a role in deciding on the shareholding of such companies. This can be left to the franchising director.

Amendment No 259 clarifies the definition of "successor company" used in the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 100 [Target investment limit for Government shareholding in certain successor companies]:

Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 246:

Page 108, line 39, at end insert:

("(za) which is a company limited by shares and formed and registered under the Companies Act 1985 (or the former Companies Acts, as defined in section 735(1) (c) of that Act);").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 101 [Temporary restrictions on borrowings etc.]:

Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 247:

Page 109, leave out line 21.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 105 [Extinguishment of certain liabilities of successor companies]:

Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 248:

Leave out Clause 105.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Carmichael. In Committee this was dealt with rather briefly on 19th July. We hear a great deal in this House, in another Place and in the country generally about the alleged great benefits of privatisation in so many sectors. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, never stops idealising these matters, although sometimes it is fantasy-land. But we do not hear much from the lips of the Minister and his colleagues about the debt write-offs in virtually every privatised industry.

Perhaps I may put on the record the extent of the write-offs: British Aerospace, public dividend capital, £60 million; National Freight Corporation, National Loans Fund, £100 million; British Transport: Docks Board, National Loans Fund, £81.29 million; British Telecommunications, National Loans Fund, £2,789 billion; British Airways, public dividend capital, £160 million; British Airports Authority, National Loans Fund, £43.5 million; British Steel, public dividend capital, £500 million; British Steel, borrowing under the Iron and Steel Act 1982, £3.48 billion:, water holding companies, National Loans Fund, nearly £5 billion; water holding companies, from the Public Works Loan Board, £55 million; Scottish electricity companies, over £1 billion from the National Loans Fund.

These figures are not generally related to the public and were wrung out of the former Chancellor, Mr. Lamont, in a Written Answer on 3rd March 1992. So I believe it is right that we should pay attention to that element of privatisation. When we discussed the matter on 19th July the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, was courteous—as he always is but courteously evasive. He was even shy perhaps about the facts. He said:

"I have stated clearly that it is too early to say how much debt, if any, might be written off using the powers contained in the clause".—[Official Report, 19/7/93; col. 545.]

One might say that he was exercising his right of silence. These are important matters. I believe that the Government owe this House: and the country a duty to be a little more open about the situation. According to the 1992–93 BRB accounts, capital liabilities to the Secretary of State currently amount to very close to £1.9 billion. I believe that that may be the key to the answer for which the noble Viscount was so earnestly searching on the last occasion. We hope that on this occasion he will be a little more open.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, spoke against Clause 99 in Committee and quoted an extract from the debate. He wanted then, as now, to elicit an estimate of the amount of the British Rail debt which will be written off as a result of privatisation. I pointed out that it was impossible to make such an estimate. Nobody knows how much debt will be written off and they cannot know until the restructuring and disposal of British Rail's existing businesses are far more advanced than at present.

This kind of provision is not unusual in legislation dealing with restructuring and the disposal of nationalised industries. Indeed, Clause 105 is modelled on Section 80 of the Electricity Act 1989. Clause 105 is not concerned with write-offs of the debt of British Rail itself. It enables the Secretary of State to secure any necessary capital restructuring of successor companies—for example, Railtrack when in the public sector—by converting public sector loans into securities.

The effect of removing the clause would be to take away the ability of the Government to write off debt of successor companies in return for the allotment of shares in that company or for some other forms of security such as a debenture. The amendment would limit flexibility in restructuring or narrow the board's businesses, and to no good purpose. Therefore, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, it is precisely because nobody can comprehend what has been the Government's thinking in this regard and because of the very dubious precedents that have occurred in other privatisations which have cost the nation so dear that I find the Minister's explanations less than convincing. Normally speaking, if it had not been for those precedents I might have been persuaded to leave things as they are. But in order to show our displeasure with the situation I must ask the House to divide.

4.28 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 248) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 142.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Hooson, L.
Airedale, L.	Howell, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L.	Hughes, L.
Ardwick, L.	Hylton, L.
Attlee, E.	Jay, L.
Aylestone, L.	Jay of Paddington, B.
Barnett, L	Jenkins of Putney, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Bonham-Carter, L.	Lockwood, B.
Boston of Faversham, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Bottomley, L.	McNair, L.
Broadbridge, L.	Marsh, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Callaghan of Cardiff, L.	Mishcon, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Molloy, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Nicol, B.
Dahrendorf, L.	Palmer, L.
David, B.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Plant of Highfield, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.	Prys-Davies, L.
Desai, L.	Richard, L.
Donoughue, L.	Rochester, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Eatwell, L.	Seear, B.
Ennals, L.	Sefton of Garston, L.
Ezra, L.	Serota, B.
Falkland, V.	Shaughnessy, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B.	Shepherd, L.
Foot, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Gladwyn, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]	Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Grey, E.	Tordoff, L.
Hampton, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Han worth, V.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Hayter, L.	Warnock, B.
Healey, L.	Whaddon, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.	White, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B. [Teller.]	Williams of Elvel, L.
Holme of Cheltenham, L.	Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.	Archer of Weston-super-Mare, L.
Abinger, L.	Arran, E.
Addison, V.	Astor, V.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Astor of Hever, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.	Auckland, L.
Alport, L.	Barber, L.
Annan, L.	Bessborough, E.

Birdwood, L.	Liverpool, E.
Blatch, B.	Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.
Blyth, L.	Long, V.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Braine of Wheatley, L.	Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]
Bruntisfield, L.
Buckinghamshire, E.	Macleod of Borve, B.
Butterworth, L.	Manchester, D.
Cadman, L.	Mancroft, L.
Caithness, E.	Melville, V.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Merrivale, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Mersey, V.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Middleton, L.
Carnock, L.	Milverton, L.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.	Monk Bretton, L.
Chelmsford, V.	Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Clanwilliam, E.	Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Clark of Kempston, L	Mountevans, L.
Constantine of Stanmore, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, L,
Cornwallis, L.	Moyne, L.
Cox, B.	Munster, E.
Cranborne, V.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Crathorne, L.	Newall, L.
Croham, L.	Norfolk, D.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Nome, L.
Cumberlege, B.	O'Brien of Lothbury, L.
Davidson, V.	Onslow, E.
Dean of Harptree, L.	Orkney, E.
Denham, L.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Denton of Wakefield, B.	Oxfuird, V.
Donegal 1, M.	Park of Monmouth, B.
Downshire, M.	Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Dundonald, E.	Piatt of Writtle, B.
Ellenborough, L.	Prentice, L.
Elles, B.	Reay, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Renton, L.
Elphinstone, L.	Richardson, L.
Elton, L.	Rippon of Hexham, L.
Ferrers, E.	Rodger of Earlsferry, L.
Rather, B.	Romney, E.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.	St. Davids, V.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.	Seccombe, B,
Goschen, V.	Selborne, E.
Gray of Contin, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Gridley, L.	Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Grimston of Westbury, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Hardinge of Penshurst, L.	Strathcarron, L.
Harmsworth, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Harrowby, E.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Hayhoe, L.	Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
Hemphill, L.	[Teller.]
Henley, L.	Suffolk and Berkshire, E.
Hesketh, L.	Swansea, L.
Hives, L.	Swinfen, L.
HolmPatrick, L.	Terrington, L.
Hood, V.	Trumpington, B.
Hooper, B.	Ullswater, V. [Teller.]
Howe, E.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Johnston of Rockport, L.	Vivian, L.
Killearn, L.	Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]
Kimball, L.
Knollys, V.	Whitelaw, V.
Lauderdale, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.37 p.m.

Clause 106 [Responsibility for composite listing particulars of certain licensed successor companies]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 249:

Page 112, line 30, leave out ("passenger licence") and insert ("licence under section 8 above").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 249, with the leave of the House I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 250. These amendments provide greater flexibility as we come to dispose of the board's businesses. They will facilitate the flotation of any 1.icensed successor company, not just a successor company which holds a passenger licence, as in the Bill at present.

I must emphasise that we have no plans at present to float any successor companies. However, we think that it would be wrong not to allow for this now, if in future it was clear that a flotation would be the best means to effect a disposal. I commend the amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 250:

Page 112, leave out line 33.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 112 [Objectives of the Secretary of State and corresponding duties of the Board]:

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne)

My Lords, I should point out that there is a misprint in the Marshalled List. The heading "Clause 114" appears in the middle of the grouping. Those words should be deleted. All amendments in this grouping relate to Clause 112.

Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 251:

Page 114, line 24, after ("by") and insert ("competent public and").

The noble Lord. said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 251, perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if we consider also Amendments Nos. 252 to 257. I shall deal with each amendment briefly.

The purpose of Amendment No. 251 is to recognise that at an earlier stage in our consideration of the Bill this House decided that publicly owned British Rail should be able to bid for passenger franchises. Currently, therefore, that stands part of the Bill. It would be interesting if the Minister could comment parenthetically at this stage on the closely guarded secret of what the Government are proposing to do in another place about that matter. However, the provision is part of the Bill at the moment and the Government must recognise that.

If British Rail were to win only one franchise we should retain a mixed public/private railway system. In any event, BR will remain the operator of franchises for which there is no private interest and will retain some of the freight activities for the time being. It is right, therefore, that the words "competent public and" should be inserted because that represents the Bill as it now stands.

Amendment No. 252 has been overtaken by an earlier debate and I need not dwell on the matter. Amendment No. 253 deals with:

"the social, environmental and economic benefits of maintaining and improving railway services in rural areas".

We are looking for a specific Government commitment that railway services in rural areas will continue and will be unharmed. The issue was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, when it was debated in Committee on 1st July. I regret that he is not available today, but on that occasion he said: The amendment seeks to ensure that facilities and resources which are at present used to maintain those rail services in rural areas will be maintained… I seek to ensure that those resources continue to be available and that the Government understand the importance of maintaining the economic viability of those areas. There is considerable anxiety in rural communities that the Bill may make the continuation of those services difficult if the Government do not ensure that the money continues to be available. We wish to see the franchises operated in the rural areas, but, in order to do so, they will clearly need Government support".—[Official Report, 1/7/93; col. 1022.1

Even after several months, it is evident from my postbag that there remains considerable suspicion on the part of those interested in rural areas about the Government's attempts to revise railway services. Although the Beeching closures took place a long time ago, the scars remain among many in the rural communities who were so adversely affected.

The Government are evidently reluctant to put any specific reassurances on the face of the Bill. However, we make a modest suggestion and I believe that it should commend itself to the Government. In no way is it a wrecking amendment, which is how the Government described the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, in relation to franchising.

Perhaps I may give an example to illustrate my argument. It concerns Lincolnshire. Major services cuts were introduced by Regional Railways on 4th October. They included the withdrawal of Sunday services between Lincoln and Sheffield and Newark and Cleethorpes; the loss of direct Sunday services between Lincoln and Nottingham; a reduction in the number of Sunday trains between Lincoln and Newark Northgate from seven to four in each direction, with the operating day reduced from 11 to fewer than six hours; and the reduction of the Gainsborough to Barnetby line to a Saturday only service, which is unprecedented. Lincolnshire presents a striking example because for a number of years the local authority, which is greatly pro-rail, has made money available for investment, station openings and support services. Therefore, if Lincolnshire is not safe, which county is safe?

At the conclusion of that short debate the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said: There are a number of issues which I feel he [the Minister] did not address. I still do not understand how in practice the franchisee will be structured to be able to afford to run a rural railway and to make use of the funding which now goes to British Rail".—[Official Report, 1/7/93; col. 1026.]

However, the noble Lord appeared to be satisfied. In order to make progress he invited his noble friend to contact him and to have a conversation with him about the matter. If that were satisfactory there would be no need to take it further. Of course, the rest of us remain uninformed about the nature of those discussions and it would be interesting if the Minister could cast some light upon them.

I wish to test the Minister about a comment that he made during that debate. He stated: That is why we have taken pains to make clear on a number of occasions the Government's commitment to continue to pay subsidy for socially necessary, loss-making services for as long as is necessary".—[Official Report, 1/7/93; col. 1025.]

What is the scope of that? The Minister's definition of "socially necessary, loss-making services" may not accord with the views expressed from time to time by the Treasury. Although the Government have made that statement, based on past experience and anxieties which have arisen as a result of the example that I gave, there is still reason for concern.

I turn to Amendment No. 254. It requires:

"maintaining a railway network in Great Britain of broadly the same size and extent as existed on 1st January 1993".

On 30th March 1988 Paul Channon, then Secretary of State, directed the BRB to: operate their railway passenger system so as to provide a public service which is comparable generally with that provided by the Board at present".

That quotation comes from the BRB's annual report and accounts of that year. The amendment seeks to establish the bare minimum undertaking from the Government that the rail network will not be allowed significantly to contract as a result of the policies upon which they are about to embark and which I need hardly remind the House we consider to be totally misguided.

Amendment No. 255 is tabled with the intention of: encouraging public and private investment in new locomotives, trains, track and other railway equipment".

We all say that investment is of paramount importance as regards the future of the railways and that of any sensible transport system. When evidence was given by British Rail to the Commons Transport Committee it was stated: We currently estimate a long-run requirement, excluding 'mega projects"'.

It is as well if I add that "mega projects" are all too often included in the total amount which the Government are said to provide, which includes the Channel Tunnel. However, at Volume II, page 40, paragraph 11 the report states: We currently estimate a long-run requirement, excluding `mega projects', for an investment level for the passenger business of about £1 billion a year, of which over £650 million a year would be in infrastructure".

If we excluded the infrastructure element, franchisees would need to produce approximately £350 million worth of investment every year simply to maintain the present quality of passenger services.

Our amendment mentions private as well as public investment. We are not seeking to say by way of inversion, as do the Government, that private is always better than public. The private sector has invested heavily in rail freight facilities and wagons and on numerous occasions during the past few years we have stated that that is to be welcomed. Indeed, partnership schemes between British Rail and private finance are also to be welcomed. We cannot accept, however, that the fragmentation and privatisation of BR will itself generate investment.

The Commons Transport Committee said: If Ministers' expectations of increased private and public sector investment in the railways are not realised, it will scarcely matter what structure of ownership or management is put in place".

The Government have a duty to tell not only this House but also the country where the investment is to come from. They have been very coy about that until now. I believe that there is no certainty about the issue and that they privately entertain serious doubts about it. The Government are living on an amalgam of conjecture and hope based on very little evidence.

As regards the movement of a larger than hitherto proportion of goods and passengers by rail—Amendment No. 256—we seek to make the transfer of traffic from road to rail a specific ministerial responsibility. It is interesting to recall that in May 1991 the previous Secretary of State for Transport, Mr. Malcolm Rifkind, said: I must declare myself, enthusiastically and unequivocally, as desiring to see far more traffic, both passengers and freight, travelling by the railways. This would help both relieve road congestion and take advantage of the capacity which exists on the railways".

He was a great railway enthusiast. Indeed, he was particularly enthusiastic about combined transport. He said that the Government would be working actively to bring forward further developments of combined transport. He was impressed by the CharterRail operation. I wonder whether the Government remain impressed by that. He said that further joint ventures were planned. Will the Minister indicate what joint ventures are being undertaken at present in order to speed the development of combined road-rail transport?

We say—and we have said it many times—that the Government have no coherent strategy for diverting traffic to the railways. Their concentration is on motorways. The current pollution is bad enough but the risk of pollution in the future is growing to such an extent that, frankly, the Government have no hopes of meeting their Rio commitments. We look to the Government to tell us today how they will go about pursuing and achieving that particular objective.

The last amendment in this group relates to the environment. It refers to,

"the environmental benefits of transporting goods and passengers by railway rather than by road".

The Department of Transport acknowledges that something like 20 per cent. of total carbon dioxide emissions, most of which come from road transport, are produced by private cars and lorries. They are one of the main sources of such emissions. There is only one industry which produces a larger share of carbon dioxide pollution, and that is electricity generation. However, the growth of emissions from transport far exceeds the level of growth from the electricity generating industry. That is extremely alarming. I believe therefore that the Government should acknowledge the extremely powerful environmental reasons in favour of rail transport. It is an issue which should be acknowledged on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, this series of amendments gives the Minister a good opportunity to discuss the issues and to inform your Lordships about the Government's attitude on broad policy aspects of the changes. I hope and believe that my noble friend will be able to reassure your Lordships on a great many of those issues. That is the real purpose of the debate on the amendments.

I comment individually on only two of the amendments. Amendment No. 251 attempts to follow up the defeat which the Government suffered at an earlier stage of the Bill. If another place decides to reverse that defeat, then I believe that the noble Lord opposite will accept that that amendment now brought forward, would also, were it to be carried, have to be reversed because it is merely complementary to the main issue which your Lordships discussed at considerable length some time ago, with the temporary result of an amendment to the Bill.

The same comment applies to Amendment No. 255. If the state is to remain in the railway industry, something on the lines of the amendment is satisfactory. But if the purpose of the Bill, as I understand it to be, is the privatisation of the industry as a whole, it is unnecessary to insert that particular provision. We shall be interested to hear what my noble friend says. I hope and believe that he will take the fuller opportunity given to him by these amendments to tell your Lordships about the Government's proposals.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will do just that. If he follows the view of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, he will say to us that the Government intend to wash their hands totally of any future connection with the railway system of this country. That is the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, sees privatisation; that is, a complete distancing by the Government from any of those matters.

If that is not the case—and it is perhaps not quite the case that the Government have gone that far—then the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, remain relevant. If the Government are still interested in a future railway system, even if it is largely mechanically run by private companies, then some of the issues should be written onto the face of the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, risks his arm on one or two matters which I should not rush to support. However, Amendment No. 253 on the social, environmental and economic benefits in rural areas is important and I support it. I believe that there is much to be said for pointing out the environmental benefits of transporting goods and passengers by railway rather than road. If that is not written on the face of the Bill, then we are in a situation where the Government are saying to the country at large, "No, we are really not interested in those issues. We will let the market work it out. The market in its wisdom will work it out and if rural railways collapse, that is the because the market says so." I hope that the Government have not gone that far. I trust that in responding to the amendments, the Minister will make their position clear.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for speaking to all the amendments in one group. They are not consequential on each other—each raises a different point—but it is helpful to have this general debate.

As many of your Lordships who have followed us through the proceedings on the Bill will recognise, these subjects are not new. We covered the ground at length in Committee and in our earlier discussions on Report. I was able to explain very fully the Government's position on those occasions and I shall not weary your Lordships by repeating exactly what I said, although I shall obviously recap to some extent.

I begin by answering the first point made by the noble Lord. Lord Clinton-Davis. He asked what the Government have decided to do about the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Peyton, which was carried in Committee. That is no secret. The noble Lord had not asked me until now. I have been poised on the edge of my seat since last Thursday waiting to give him an answer. I am now delighted to be able to say that your Lordships are of course aware of our reservations about the impact of allowing BR to bid for an operating franchise in competition with the private sector, including management and employee teams. We have been considering the issues in the light of comments made in Committee. The Government recognise that the House has asked us to look again at the arguments when the amendments return to the other place, and that is exactly what the Government will do. So far as concerns Amendment No. 251, Clause 112 has nothing to do with the award of franchises which fall under Part I of the Bill.

5 p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, is the noble Earl seriously saying that he has been poised on the edge of his seat just to say that?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I have been concentrating on other issues as well, but it has not been far from the front of my mind. I had been longing to say that to the noble Lord for a day-and-a-half and I feel much happier now that I have been able to do so.

Clause 112(1) sets out the Secretary of State's principal objective when exercising his powers under Clauses 83 to 96 which relate to transfer schemes and disposals. Those clauses are intended primarily to transfer parts of BR to the private sector because that is the Government's policy. Railway services are already provided by the public sector and it would not be appropriate to extend the Secretary of State's principal objective to securing that they should be performed by public sector operators in the way that Amendment No. 251 suggests.

The amendment also raises the question of competence to operate railway services. I am most surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, does not feel that BR is a competent organisation. However, on reconsideration, I think that he will perhaps recognise that it is a competent organisation—after all, the word "competent" is mentioned in his amendment. The licensing system which we are introducing will ensure that future operators are also competent. That was a concern expressed by your Lordships and I hope that I was able to assuage such concerns at earlier stages. There does not seem to be any need to add to the Bill in respect of the Secretary of State's duties under the requirement in Clause 112(1) (a) that operators should be competent.

I shall now deal with the other amendments. They add to the list of factors to the desirability of which the Secretary of State must have regard in the exercise of his Clause 83 to 96 functions. I should like to remind the House that Clause 112 is relatively narrow in its scope. It applies to the exercise of the Secretary of State's restructuring and disposal functions under Clauses 83 to 96. Therefore, I do not think it appropriate to use the clause to further ends which are not specifically related to the exercise of those functions and which are really for Clause 4 of the Bill, dealing with the general operation of the railway following privatisation. I believe that I would have received support on the latter from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and my noble friend Lord Renton, had they been in the Chamber.

I shall not dwell upon Amendment No. 252 merely because the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, did not do so. Instead, I shall move on to Amendment No. 253. The duty in Clause 4(1) (a) to protect the interests of users of railway services, and that in Clause 4(1) (b) to promote the use and development of the railway network to the greatest extent economically practicable, are both relevant to the needs of rural areas. To add a specific reference to rural areas here might imply that we thought that urban areas were in some way less important, which I am sure cannot be the noble Lord's intention. As I have said to the House before, we are aware of the valuable role which railway services play in rural areas, but while I have sympathy with the aim of the amendment I cannot commend it to your Lordships.

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked about the relationship between our commitment to continue to provide subsidy for socially necessary services and the current PSO under which BR is required to maintain services at broadly the levels provided in 1988. I can only reiterate what I have said to the noble Lord on more than one occasion; namely, that I have made clear that when services are franchised, the franchising director will put forward that franchise on the basis of the timetable of the service operated by BR at that time. I must tell the noble Lord—and I am sure that, on reflection, he will agree with me—that when we bring in the franchising director who has a contract with a franchisee, the situation will be much stronger for the protection of rural services than it is under BR's obligation at present. That is a point that we discussed at earlier stages. I only stress it because I believe that it is relevant. If someone has a contract—for example, Clinton-Davis Railways—with the franchising director to provide services on those rural lines, he will be under a contract so to do.

I turn now to Amendment No. 254. I have just drawn attention to Clause 4(1) (b) which is the appropriate part of the Bill for the above concerns. It places a duty on the Secretary of State to promote the use and development of the railway network to the greatest extent economically practicable. We have consistently said that we will continue to support socially necessary services which are reliant on subsidy. So there is no reason to believe that our proposals will lead to the closure of lines or to reductions in services.

One of the great advantages of our proposals is that they will allow the private sector to operate and invest in the railways. That is what is so badly needed. Such a situation will bring an additional source of funding to supplement the substantial amounts of government funding for the railways which we have made available in recent years and which will continue after privatisation.

Again, and sadly, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that we were a department with no strategy which concentrated on motorways. Perhaps I may remind the House that about half of the department's budget is spent on public transport; indeed, in London for every £1 that we spend on roads, we spend £3 on public transport. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, does not really think that we are just a department for motorways.

Amendment No. 255 is, of course, just as important as the others. However, it is very similar to an amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, last Thursday when we discussed investment. I answered the noble Lord very fully on that occasion. I know that he was not entirely satisfied with my response, but I believe that he took the point that we are concerned about investment and that we believe in its importance.

Amendment No. 256 deals with encouraging the transfer of goods and passenger traffic to the railways. I spoke at length on the subject during earlier stages of the Bill's proceedings. I should like to draw noble Lords' attention to Clauses 133 and 135 which are tangible evidence of our commitment to get more freight traffic off the roads and on to the railways. Again, I answered the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, on that point more fully when I responded to Amendment No. 218 this afternoon.

I turn now to Amendment No. 257 which deals with the question of the environmental duty. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, was most concerned on the issue and, as a former Minister for the Environment, I too am equally concerned. We discussed the matter in connection with his amendment in Committee and also in regard to the first amendment on Report. Again, I invite your Lordships to look at Clause 4(3) (b) where there already is an environmental duty on the Secretary of State and the regulator. Therefore, a further requirement in Clause 112 is unnecessary.

I sympathise with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is trying to achieve by way of the amendments. I know that the noble Lord will have listened with great care to what I said previously as regards how we support greater investment; how we wish to see the rural areas protected; how we wish to see the environment protected; and how we wish to see further transport on the railways—that is, both passengers and goods. However, I must tell the House that this is not the place to put such a provision in the Bill. I draw noble Lords' attention, once again, to Clause 4.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, perhaps I may intervene before the noble Earl sits down. I asked him a specific question about combined road/rail transport to which he did not respond.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, in order to give the noble Lord the answer that he would like, perhaps I may write to him on the matter.

Lord Clinton-Davis

Yes, my Lords.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, before the noble Earl concludes, I wonder whether he is conscious of the fact that, by a single unfortunate phrase, he may have blown the whole of the Bill out of the water. He referred to the possibility of "Clinton-Davis Railways". The shudder that ran around his Back Benches seemed to suggest that that was opening up a Pandora's box about which some of his noble friends had not even thought.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I have mentioned Clinton-Davis Railways before on more than one occasion; indeed, I think that I referred to them only last Thursday. I am looking forward to the noble Lord submitting his tender to the franchising director.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I suppose that I must deal immediately with that notion. I should like to put the Minister's mind at rest. Clinton-Davis Railways will have better things to do than to tender for this ridiculous franchising operation. Perhaps we shall be able to get some money out of the European Community and the French railways. We may even amalgamate with the French railways. That would have a distinct possibility of success.

I shall deal briefly with the points which have been raised. I thank the Minister for his courtesy in dealing with everything save the question of combined transport. I know he said that he would write to me on that matter, but these secret missives that pass between the Minister and various noble Lords do not help others very much. I hope he will intervene again in this debate if that is at all possible.

The Minister seems to have a habit of trying to shoot down his friends. He said in effect that there was nothing in the suggestion I was making as regards Amendment No. 251. However, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that there might be something in it, although he was not prepared to say here and now that there was. However, the Minister declined to deal with that point.

I agreed entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said: rural issues and environmental benefits need to be addressed on the face of the Bill. The Minister said that such a course might give people the idea that there was a lack of commitment to urban areas. It is riot good enough for the Minister to say that. He said that he sympathised with the aim of the amendment, but time will tell whether his sympathy comes to anything.

As regards the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, it would appear that the Minister has been on the edge of his seat for weeks, or at least for days, thinking of nothing else but that amendment. But what does he come out with? Apparently the Government will consider the amendment. We knew that months ago as that is what they said they would do. However, they are still extremely coy about what they intend to do. We all know, of course, what they are doing. They are consulting with their Back-Bench Members to determine whether there is a major risk of defeat on the issue. If there is a risk of defeat, somehow or other that wrecking amendment will cease to be known as a wrecking amendment and the Government will say that, after all, it is advantageous. The Minister cast a blinding ray of darkness on the. Government's intentions in that regard. One has to ask what other great pieces of information he is poised to inform the House of over the course of the next few hours on such matters as pensions for example.

The Minister said that when services are franchised the position in rural areas will be stronger. However, the franchising director will have competing claims and priorities. He will have a limited budget. The impact of possible closures bears hard on those issues. As regards Amendment No. 254, the Minister has said that what he is proposing will enable the private sector to invest in the railways to a far greater extent and that half the department's budget is being spent on public transport. He also said that a much greater proportion of the budget was devoted to public transport than to roads. One must compare that position with the position among our competitors on the Continent of Europe. There it is far removed from the statistical sleight of hand that the Minister engages in in these matters. One knows that public transport there is infinitely superior and that governments on the Continent have invested substantially, through subsidy, in public transport. One knows too of the enormous benefits that flow to the travelling public on the Continent as a result. That is not happening on that scale in this country. To present the figures as the Minister presented them is not to give a completely accurate picture.

I shall not say anything more about Amendment No. 255 as it was dealt with earlier on. However, as regards the commitment to transfer more traffic from the roads to the railways, the Minister has said again that he is hoping that somehow or other the necessary investment will be provided from the private sector to ensure that that happens. However, there is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that that is happening. Indeed the position becomes worse day by day. I shall not say anything more about the environment, but I hope that the Minister will be kind enough to reply to the specific points I made about combined road-rail transport because of the specific commitment which was given by the Secretary of State's predecessor. It would be of value to the House to know what is happening in that regard because it is crucial to the issue of transferring traffic from road to rail.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should say that there is nothing secretive about the letters I write to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I have a standing instruction that a copy should automatically be placed in the Library of the House. The letters are also copied widely to those who regularly take part in the proceedings on this Bill. I said I would write to the noble Lord on this matter as I could thereby set out details more fully. However, I must point out one area where there has been much government approved investment. There has been some £450 million invested in the Channel Tunnel intermodal operations. The development of joint ventures is a matter for British Rail, but in the example I have mentioned intermodal operations will be enormously enhanced. The ability for freight users of the railway to tranship their goods under the: tunnel when it is open will offer enormous opportunities, particularly for those in Scotland and the North West who do not have such a facility at present. They will be able to transport their goods to the Continent much more quickly and cheaply than at present.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the courtesy of his reply. We shall, of course, never agree about these matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 252 to 257 not moved.]

Clause 113 [The Secretary of State, the Franchising Director and the Board not to be regarded as shadow directors of certain railway companies etc.]:

5.15 p.m.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 258:

Page 115, line 24, leave out ("securities of') and insert ("interests in").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 115 [Interpretation of Part II]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 259:

Page 115, leave out line 42 and insert:

(""successor company" means a company in which any property, rights or liabilities are vested in accordance with a transfer scheme;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 116 [Safety of railways and other guided transport systems]:

Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 260:

Page 116, line 34, at end insert:

("() Where the Health and Safety Executive establishes procedures for the validation of the safety strategies of train operators either by itself or by a network controller, it shall be prohibited for a person acquiring a franchise or ownership of a former subsidiary of the Board to acquire the validation of the former owner of the franchise or subsidiary without the same scrutiny of his safety strategy as would have applied for a new train operator.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 260 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 261. They cover not exactly the same ground but deal with the same area. As regards Amendment No. 260, it is my understanding that draft regulations are currently under discussion between the Health and Safety Executive and interested parties. These discussions aim to give effect to a 37-point plan devised by the Health and Safety Commission in anticipation of the passage of this Bill.

A key element of the plan drawn up by the HSE is the validation of train operators' safety cases by Railtrack—which is, I understand, the appropriate organisation—prior to operations beginning. Surprisingly it appears that the draft proposals for the railways' safety case regulations suggest that a new operator might be able to adopt the safety case of a previous operator. It is felt that such an arrangement would breach the principle that the operator should fully understand every component of safety strategy before running a train. I am sure the Minister will understand our concern that safety standards are maintained following privatisation. It is important that new operators develop safety strategies designed to ensure that this occurs. It may well be that steps are already being taken through consultations which we know are proceeding. However, we would welcome some assurances from the Government on this issue, even if wording of this kind does not find its way onto the Bill.

The purpose of Amendment No. 261 is to ensure that the safety cases of train operators are scrutinised by trade union health and safety representatives prior to the acceptance by Railtrack or the Health and Safety Executive. As I understand it, under the safety strategy proposed by the Health and Safety Commission, train operators will have to prepare a safety case covering all aspects of their activities and the safety case must be validated before the operator runs any trains. Validation will usually be undertaken by Railtrack.

Trade union health and safety representatives elected from the workforce and approved by their trade unions play an essential role in maintaining the safety of both staff and passengers in the existing railway industry. The amendment is intended to ensure that their function will not in any way be diminished as a result, for example, of the commercial confidentiality of new train operators. The draft regulations published by the HSE with the aim of implementing its safety strategy envisage consultation with health and safety representatives. It would help to tie that down if there were something to that effect on the face of the Bill.

One of the best features of health and safety regulations in this country, as I am sure the Minister would agree, is the emphasis that we lay on the involvement of the workforce, and in particular involvement through the election of workplace safety representatives, for whom it is normal to have training provided by the unions. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that it is intended that that will continue after privatisation. I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, the importance of safety on the railways is a matter on which I am sure we all agree. I totally agree with what the noble Baroness said in that regard. I have said that before. We have accepted the 37 recommendations of the Health and Safety Commission's report, which have also been accepted by the chairman of British Rail.

In relation to her first point, I take careful note of what the noble Baroness said. There is certainly no intention that privatisation should lead to a diminution in safety on the railways. Quite the reverse. Any of your Lordships who have been involved in any way with an accident on the railways, or in aviation or shipping, will know full well that safety is one area on which we cannot stint. It is very important.

I hope that the noble Baroness will raise her point in the consultation or that it will be raised by the unions. That is exactly the purpose of the consultation. We want to hear views. It is a detailed point and it is perhaps best dealt with in that forum. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that I have noted the point and I shall make sure that we look at her particular concern.

I turn now to Amendment No. 261, which would provide for employee representatives to scrutinise a railway safety case prior to validation taking place. This seems to suggest that the noble Baroness believes that employee representatives will not be involved in the preparation of the safety case. Let me make it absolutely clear that the draft regulations require consultation with safety representatives appointed by trade unions under the Safety Representatives and Safety Committee Regulations on the preparation of the safety case. High standards of safety and health performance cannot be achieved without the positive and informed commitment of the workforce, and particular emphasis is placed on the draft regulations and guidance on consultation with the workforce.

I hope that those remarks provide the reassurance which the noble Baroness sought. We believe that that is very important and we wish it to continue.

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the assurances he gave on both amendments, in particular his assurance in relation to Amendment No. 260 that he will look into the matter very carefully himself. I am also gratified to learn of the consultations now taking place and that it is a point of government policy to ensure that safety arrangements are continued at the same level as or perhaps even better than at present.

Having listened to those assurances, which will of course appear in Hansard, I believe that I may safely withdraw the amendments. I am grateful for the assurances that have been given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 261 not moved.]

Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 262:

Page 117, line 45, at end insert:

("() Nothing in this section shall be deemed to permit any persons who provide railway services from allowing themselves or their employees, in other than emergency circumstances; to work—

1. (a) more than seventy two hours per week;
2. (b) More than twelve hours per turn of duty;
3. (c) more than six days per week;
4. (d) without a minimum rest period of twelve hours between turns of duty.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a very important amendment. Its purpose is to ensure that after privatisation safety will not be put at risk because of increased working hours.

The railway industry is one in which traditionally working hours have been long, often with a great deal of overtime. That is because of the need to provide a service from early in the morning until late at night and sometimes overnight. British Rail carries out a census of pay and hours each year, normally in October. This covers the majority of staff, excluding managerial staff, and includes most of the safety-critical posts which caused so much concern during the major inquiry following the railway accident at Clapham Junction on 12th December 1988. Your Lordships will perhaps recall that in that accident 18 people were killed and others injured. It gave rise to widespread concern about railway safety.

Weekly paid staff in BR work a basic week of 39 hours and salaried administrative staff work 37 hours. I am told that overtime is commonplace, and. I am advised that some staff have worked as much as 80 hours a week. There have been significant reductions in staffing since 1987. Some of us would probably say that there has been too great a reduction. I personally am not happy that stations should frequently seem so deserted, particularly at night, and I am sure that I am not the only woman to find that rather scary. Perhaps that is another issue, but I felt that I had to put the point across because it is something about which I feel strongly. The fact remains that reductions in staff mean that average working hours remain high.

As a result of the recommendations of Anthony Hidden QC following the Clapham disaster, BR established the guideline of a maximum of 70 hours per week for staff in safety-critical posts. That is now being applied to all staff, whether or not they are in safety-critical jobs. It was also recommended that BR should ensure that overtime is monitored so that no excessive overtime is worked by anyone. I am told that BR is doing that.

The unions are concerned lest private operators, intent on maximising profits, may not observe the guidelines which have already been established. Needless to say, it would be extremely dangerous were that to happen. I believe that the Government have a responsibility to see that it does not.

Travel by rail is rightly regarded as one of the safest means of transport, but when an accident does occur the results can be quite devastating because of the relatively large numbers of people being transported, so that there are sometimes large numbers of casualties. Such accidents, when they occur, give rise to widespread public concern.

It is freely acknowledged that the use of alcohol and drugs is inimical to safety. The same is surely true of fatigue resulting from working long hours. Recently BR introduced a very tough alcohol and drug abuse policy as a result of the Transport and Works Act 1992. One of the features of BR policy is that all staff, whether or not in safety-critical posts, should adhere to the same alcohol restrictions on the basis that it is necessary to create an alcohol-free regime, particularly at lunchtime and before reporting for duty n the early morning. The trade unions accepted that approach in the spirit of fairness. They therefore suggest that the same conditions should apply to all staff in the matter of working hours.

I repeat that there is an obligation on government to ensure that privatisation does not mean a falling off in safety standards. Unless requirements of this kind are written on the face of the Bill, private operators may he tempted to cut corners in the search for profits. They should not be allowed to do so. Therefore, I hope that the Government will support the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, this is an interesting amendment, not least because it proposes to impose restrictions on working hours not only on the employees but also on the people in charge—the chairman and others—of the organisations; which will be running the railway. While it is usual to lay down limits on working hours for employees, it is very unusual indeed to seek to lay them down for the heads of organisations. Indeed, having watched the progress of this Bill, I am quite sure that my noble friend the Minister has exceeded these limits during the past few weeks by a considerable amount. Nonetheless, he does not seem to be any the worse for it. Therefore, one has to be careful about legislating in this way.

I believe that the provision is too rigid. The operation by railways of long distance services might well prove inconsistent with some of the restrictions. In any event, the major issue which the amendment raises is whether we should put such figures, well conceived or not, into the Bill. I have grave doubts. The amendment introduces unnecessary rigidity. It is very unusual to seek to apply such limits to the heads of organisations.

5.30 p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may intervene. Does he recognise that road haulage, drivers' hours and rest periods are dealt with specifically by a European Community directive or by regulations? Those provisions are, however, unsatisfactory because of the difficulties of policing them. That should not apply to the same extent to British Rail. It is doubtful whether people will seek to avoid regulations in quite the same way as is practised with regard to road haulage. However, in that regard one has definitive rules laid down which the Government supported.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, the noble Lord has missed the point that I sought to make. Drivers' hours are one thing; the hours of the chairman of the company employing the drivers are another. The amendment proposes to apply the limitation to everyone including the chairman, managing director, or whoever he may be, of the railway companies involved.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that if the provision were to be applied to those engaged in manning trains he would support the matter in principle?

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, first, the matter goes too wide. Secondly, I am doubtful as to the desirability of legislating on hours of work. It may well be necessary to have some more flexible limitations imposed administratively. But to legislate in that way for all is a mistake.

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may say this. The amendment states, in other than emergency circumstances". There is therefore a provision for emergency circumstances.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I am not sure that I follow the noble Baroness's point. The amendment states: Nothing in this section shall be deemed to permit any persons who provide railway services from allowing themselves or their employees, in other than emergency circumstances".

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I am almost tempted not to intervene in the debate between my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Baroness and the noble Lord opposite.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will thereby be able himself to comply with the restrictions on working hours which the amendment proposes to impose.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, if I complied with the restrictions in the amendment I should not have a job after tonight. The amendment seeks to impose specific statutory maximum limits on hours of work and minimum rest periods for those who work on or with the railway. I was interested to hear the points that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter raised. He agrees that fundamentally the noble Baroness had a point for the operators of the service of trains. Let me reassure the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter immediately that it is an issue already addressed by the regulations being prepared by the Health and Safety Executive to implement the new safety regime for the privatised railway. The Government's general concerns in respect of the last two amendments about dealing with specific aspects of the safety regime in the Railways Bill apply equally to this amendment.

The House will recall that we discussed the question of railway workers' hours at Committee stage. I explained during that debate that the HSE was consulting on draft regulations which propose a new general duty on operators to ensure that safety critical staff do not work excessive hours. In addition, the draft regulations proposed for consultation purposes specific limits on the hours of duty to be worked by train drivers. Responses to the consultation on that and other issues are now being considered by the HSE.

I would prefer to await the further advice from the Health and Safety Executive in the light of its consideration of those responses. It is clear that the issue of workers' hours on the railway will be covered by the safety critical work regulations and I have no doubt that the views expressed by the noble Baroness today will be heard by the Health and Safety Executive. I add to that. I will ensure that its attention is drawn to what the noble Baroness said in the debate. However, having said that, and since the matters are being considered at present by the Health and Safety Executive, I believe that it would be wrong for the House to pre-empt that process.

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, can he be more specific on the Government's view? I am glad to note that the HSE is considering the issue and that he will bring my views to its attention. However, what are the precise views of government in relation to the suggestion made in the amendment? Do they consider that people should not work more than 72 hours per week? I do not refer only to people in safety critical posts. The unions believe that there should be an overall restriction in relation to people providing those services except in emergency circumstances. I should be grateful if the noble Earl will tell me precisely what the Government believe.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I had thought that I was more on the receiving than the serving end. That is exactly why we have a Health and Safety Executive. When the Health and Safety Executive recommended the 37 points with regard to safety, it was right that we left it as the independent body to advise the Government. That body advised the Government. Together with the chairman of British Rail, the Government said "yes" 37 times in response.

I do not wish to appear unable to answer the noble Baroness. I believe that on this occasion it is right for the Health and Safety Executive to come forward with its advice to the Government.

Baroness Turner of Camden

My Lords, I note what the Minister says. I wish to consider it and to assess the position at Third Reading. I know that there is much strength of feeling about hours for everyone, not simply those people working in safety critical posts. I am glad that the HSE is considering the matter and that my views as expressed today will be brought to the attention of the HSE. In those circumstances it is not my intention to press the issue to a vote today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I shall watch developments closely.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 117 [Control of railways in time of hostilities, severe international tension or great national emergency]:

The Earl of Caithness: moved Amendments Nos. 263 to 267:

Page 118, leave out line 9.

Page 118, line 22, leave out ("or an ancillary service").

Page 118, line 31, leave out ("or an ancillary service").

Page 118, line 38, leave out ("or an ancillary service").

Page 118, line 43, leave out ("or ancillary service").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 118 [Security: power of Secretary of State to give instructions]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 268:

Page 121, line 32, at end insert:

("(8A) A person who without reasonable excuse fails to do anything required of him by an instruction is guilty of an offence and shall be liable

1. on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; or
2. on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years, or to both.

(8B) No proceedings shall be instituted in England and Wales in respect of an offence under subsection (8A) above except by or with the consent of the Secretary of State or the Director of Public Prosecutions.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment makes failure to comply with an instruction issued by the Secretary of State under Clause 118 a criminal offence. It follows the precedent established in the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 (AMSA) and gives the Secretary of State additional powers to protect the railways.

Clauses 118 and 119 presently allow the Secretary of State to issue instructions specifying security measures which must be undertaken. In a case of non-compliance the Secretary of State may issue an enforcement notice. After further consideration, we have brought forward this amendment to provide a strong power should an operator deliberately and blatantly fail to comply with the important security measures set out in an instruction. That will allow for a more effective sanction when speed of action is essential. Without the amendment the Secretary of State would have no adequate sanction if a failure to comply with an instruction contributed in some way to an incident before an enforcement notice had been served.

We anticipate that the risk of prosecution will provide the strongest possible incentive to comply with an instruction. Indeed, since the Aviation arid Maritime Security Act came into force there have been no prosecutions for failure to comply with a direction, which is the AMSA equivalent of an instruction.

We intend to retain the ability to issue an enforcement notice. Instructions could be issued which would prescribe a number of different measures. If an operator failed to comply with just one measure., it might, for example, be appropriate to target an enforcement notice at that measure. I beg to move.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, on the first class of events, on summary conviction a person will be liable: to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum". What is the statutory maximum?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I knew that my noble friend would bowl me middle stump. I am afraid that I do not know. I shall find out and let him know.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 269:

After Clause 120, insert the following new clause:

("Statutory authority

Statutory authority as a defence to actions in nuisance etc

—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section—

1. (a) any person shall have authorityx2014;
   1. (i) to use, or to cause or permit any agent or independent contractor of his to use, rolling stock on any track, or
   2. (ii) to use, or to cause or permit any agent or independent contractor of his to use, any land comprised in a network, station or light maintenance depot for or in connection with the provision of network services, station services or light maintenance services, and
2. (b) any person who is the owner or occupier of any land shall have authority to authorise, consent to or acquiesce in—
   1. (i) the use by another of rolling stock on any track comprised in that land, or
   2. (ii) the use by another of that land for or in connection with the provision of network services, station services or light maintenance services,

if and so long as the qualifying conditions are satisfied in the particular case. (2) For the purposes of this section, the "qualifying conditions" are—

1. (a) in relation to any use of rolling stock on track—
   1. (i) that the track is comprised in a network, station or light maintenance depot, and
   2. (ii) that the operator of that network, station or light maintenance depot is the holder of an appropriate licence or has the benefit of an appropriate licence exemption; and
2. (b) in relation to any use of land for or in connection with the provision of network services, station services or light maintenance services, that the operator of the

network, station or light maintenance depot in question is the holder of an appropriate licence or has the benefit of an appropriate licence exemption. (3) The authority conferred by this section is conferred only for the purpose of providing a defence of statutory authority—

1. (a) in England and Wales—
   1. (i) in any proceedings, whether civil or criminal, in nuisance; or
   2. (ii) in any civil proceedings, other than proceedings for breach of statutory duty, in respect of the escape of things from land;
2. (b) in Scotland, in any civil proceedings on the ground of nuisance where the rule of strict liability applies, other than proceedings for breach of statutory duty.

(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed as excluding a defence of statutory authority otherwise available under or by virtue of any enactment. (5) The owner or occupier of any land shall be regarded for the purposes of this section as "acquiescing" in

1. any use by another of rolling stock on track comprised in that land, or
2. any use of that land by another for or in connection with the provision of network services, station services or light maintenance services,

notwithstanding that it is not within his power to put an end to that use by that other. (6) For the purposes of this section

1. any reference to the use of rolling stock on track includes a reference to the carriage of any passengers or other persons, or any goods, of any class or description for any purpose on or by means of that rolling stock on that track; and
2. rolling stock shall be regarded as "used" on any track at any time when it is present on that track, irrespective of whether the rolling stock is comprised in a train or not, whether the rolling stock is moving or stationary and, if moving, irrespective of the means by which the motion is caused.

(7) In this section appropriate licence", in relation to the operator of a network, station or light maintenance depot, means a licence which authorises him to be the operator of that network, station or light maintenance depot; appropriate licence exemption", in relation to the operator of a network, station or light maintenance depot, means any such licence exemption as exempts him from the requirement to hold the licence that would otherwise be the appropriate licence in his case; and expressions used in this section and in Part I above have the same meaning in this section as they have in that Part.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 122 [Railway heritage]:

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 270:

Page 124, line 1, leave out ("A publicly owned") and insert ("Any").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to take with Amendment No. 270, Amendments Nos. 274 to 276. In the debate that we had earlier at the Committee stage on the role of the National Railway Museum, the Minister expressed sympathy with the view that the work of the National Railway Museum must not be impeded by the transfer of ownership of many railway artefacts in the private sector.

There are several key conditions in these amendments which would facilitate the work of the National Railway Museum. First, the committee must be able to claim items from the private sector. That has been debated before, when a misapprehension about claims without compensation seems to have been formed. One of the amendments in my name allows for payments to be made under the direction of subsection (2) (c) of the clause.

Secondly, the new subsection in Amendment No. 274 requires the basis of compensation for any claimed item to be independently determined, the choice of value being a matter to be laid down in the terms of reference for the committee to be drawn up under subsection (4) (c) of the clause.

Thirdly, priority is given under the new subsection in Amendment No. 275 to the pre-eminent role of the National Railway Museum at York which, as we sometimes forget, is a branch of the National Museum of Science and Technology and it is at the heart of railway heritage in this country. The National Railway Museum works closely with other museums and privately owned railway companies already, and its pre-eminence must not be taken as equivalent to automatic pre-emption.

Finally, the new subsection in Amendment No. 276 adds an important role for the National Railway Museum as a principal adviser to the committee. I hope that those arrangements and their operation will help the Minister to realise that we have tried to find a way out of the problems which arose in earlier amendments at the Committee stage. We hope that he will accept the amendments, or at least their spirit. I beg to move.

5.45 p.m.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, before my noble friend replies, at an earlier stage in the proceedings in your Lordships' House I had a conversation with the head of the National Railway Museum mentioned in Amendment No. 275. On Amendment No. 276, I had understood, from the conversations I had in the summer with the National Railway Museum, that there was little between the requirements of the museum and the department as regards acquiring assets. I know that my noble friend's department had a fruitful and useful meeting with the representatives of the National Railway Museum. I wondered, if there is a gap, whether the amendments will close the gap or whether the fruitful discussions with the department at an earlier stage had been closing the gap on a separate issue.

I am sure that my noble friend and your Lordships agree that the National Railway Museum is one of the best in Europe, if not in the world, in its category. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, as with many of the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I have considerable sympathy with what he is trying to achieve. Noble Lords will recall that I advised your Lordships in earlier proceedings that we were looking carefully at the heritage clause with a view to extending its scope to cover artefacts at present in the public sector but due to be transferred into the private sector. I explained that that presented the problem that, unless fair compensation was available, the provisions could amount to confiscatory legislation and would be in breach of human rights provisions.

The present Clause 122 allows for the creation of a scheme by order to cover artefacts owned by the BR Board and its subsidiaries. We shall be discussing with the National Railway Museum and others how we can best encourage the creation of voluntary arrangements under which private owners can be made aware of the interest of collecting institutions in acquiring particular items at the point of disposal. Since we recognise that, in the case of private sector assets, any acquisition by the collecting institutions will in any event have to be on fair terms, we think that such voluntary arrangements should suffice.

Amendments Nos. 270 to 274 would extend the scope of Clause 122 to cover all items owned by private companies. However, there is no statement of the need for fair compensation and no mechanism for review of the payments offered. Such provision is essential if we are to avoid the charge that the legislation is confiscatory. Also, if the provisions were to be extended to cover private sector artefacts it would not be appropriate for the board to be involved so closely in the creation and funding of the committee, as Clause 122 provides at present.

For these reasons, I cannot accept these amendments, but I hope noble Lords are reassured that we can create an effective climate for the acquisition of privately owned railway artefacts by the National Railway Museum and other collecting institutions through a voluntary administrative scheme.

Amendments Nos. 276 and 277 relate to the role of the National Railway Museum. While I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, to see the position of the National Railway Museum safeguarded, I find difficulty with these two amendments.

Dealing first with Amendment No. 275, I do not agree that the museum should have an automatic right of priority in the considerations of the heritage committee. The Government's primary concern underlying Clause 122 has been to ensure that the railway heritage of the nation is adequately protected.

We hope to create a committee which will be dedicated to ensuring that railway artefacts and archives are preserved for the study and enjoyment of future generations. The National Railway Museum commands great respect in the railway community. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Lyell said on that point. We would therefore expect the views of the museum to carry great weight in the Committee. Circumstances will occur, however, where it may be more appropriate for an item to be deposited in a different institution. For instance, the Public Record Office currently acquires a large proportion of British Rail records. To give the National Railway Museum statutory priority within the Committee would be unhelpful and—I think the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, would agree with me on this—potentially divisive within the railway community.

Turning to Amendment No. 276, I believe that it is also unnecessary. It provides that the National Railway Museum is to give advice to the heritage committee on the historical interest or suitability for preservation of any record or artefact, when required. However, I can give this reassurance. It is already our intention that those invited to serve on the proposed committee will be knowledgeable in railway matters and, where expert advice is required, I am sure that it will be sought from all relevant quarters and will be freely given.

I am sure that your Lordships will agree with me that the National Railway Museum is much respected within the railway community for its expertise. I cannot imagine that it would refuse to give advice where sought. It is for that reason that we feel that a statutory duty is unnecessary.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the time that he has taken to reply and for his sympathy in the amendments. But I am rather disappointed. He has not been as helpful as I had hoped. For instance, he said that it looked as though these amendments might make it possible to confiscate artefacts, whereas Amendment No. 274 quite clearly says that such items as are to be purchased by the National Railway Museum would be, independently valued before determining any payments which are to be made under a direction made under subsection (2) (c) above". I should have thought that that would be sufficient to make him realise that there was no confiscatory suggestion at all. Of course we should have regard to the question of public records. But from my visits to the museum I felt that it would be only too pleased to hand over the vast mass of the paperwork to the Public Records Office as being the best place to look after it. The Minister has almost certainly been at the museum and will have seen the enthusiasm that people there have for maintaining railway artefacts. They do not want to have any records that would be better fitted into the Public Records Office with other records of the same period.

My worry is whether there will be the same control over railway artefacts as exists at present over works of art? Will it be possible to stop them going abroad for a certain period of time to see whether it is possible to raise enough money to purchase them? This country started the railways. It would be a shame if we were to lose artefacts that were essential. There are an enormous number of railway artefacts. There is plenty of room for some of them to go abroad or to other places. But one or two items may very well come up which are so important to the memory and the history of the railway system in Britain that it would be unfortunate if they were to go abroad. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether there will be any protection in that respect?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I do riot believe that there is the protection that the noble Lord seeks—which is a protection somewhat similar to that for works of art. The two are of a different order. I understand the noble Lord's concern, which I am sure many noble Lords share, to preserve these good items, but I do not believe that I can offer him the assurance that he seeks.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. If the Getty Museum decided to buy Stephenson's "Rocket", what would be the reaction? Would there be any power to stop that happening? From what I read about the Getty Museum, it could buy it quite easily. That is the sort of point I was trying to make. However, I thank the Minister for his efforts, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 271 to 276 not moved.]

Clause 123 [General duties and powers of the Board]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 277:

Page 125, line 32, at end insert ("are, or have at any time since the coming into force of this subsection been,—

(za) provided by the Board, or a subsidiary of the Board, pursuant to any agreements or arrangements falling within subsection (1B) of this section; or").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 277, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 278 to 283 inclusive and to Amendments Nos. 326 and 335.

These amendments clarify the way in which the board's duty to provide railway services under Section 3 of the Transport Act 1962 is to be disapplied as other operators take over services currently provided by BR. They do not affect the principle of the clause: that BR's statutory duty to provide railway services should cease when those services start to be provided by another party.

Amendments Nos. 277 and 279 disapply the board's statutory duty to provide railway services where the board or a subsidiary has entered into certain agreements or arrangements under the Bill. In such cases BR's duty to provide services will be a contractual one to the other party to the agreement. There is no need for a statutory duty as a result.

However, Amendment No. 279 ensures the continued application of that part of BR's statutory duty which requires it to have due regard to efficiency, economy and safety where it is providing services as a party to these agreements. This is over and above any contractual duties of the board in these matters.

The other amendments in this group simply tidy up various loose ends. With that assurance, I commend these amendments to the House. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 278 to 283:

Page 125, line 33, leave out ("are, or are to be,").

Page 125, line 35, leave out from ("subsidiaries") to end of line 37 and insert:

("but, notwithstanding anything in this subsection, it shall be the duty of the Board to have, as respects any railway services provided as mentioned in paragraph (za) of this subsection (and any other services or facilities provided in connection therewith) due regard to efficiency, economy and safety of operation.

(1B) The agreements or arrangements mentioned in subsection (1A) (za) of this section are as follows, namely

1. (a) an agreement or arrangement made pursuant to the Railways Act 1993, to which the Franchising Director and the Board, or a subsidiary of the Board, are parties;
2. (b) an agreement made between—
   1. (i) the Board or a subsidiary of the Board, and
   2. (ii) a person who is the owner or operator of a railway asset or track, 552 being an agreement under which the Board or a subsidiary of the Board operates that railway asset or track or uses it to provide network, station or light maintenance services.

(1C) For the purposes of subsection (1B) above and this subsection—

1. any reference to a railway asset includes a reference to any part of a railway asset;
2. "operator", in relation to a railway asset or track, means the person having the management of that railway asset or track for the time being;
3. "owner", in relation to a railway asset or track, means any person—
   1. who has an estate or interest in, or right over, the railway asset or track in question; and
   2. whose permission to use that railway asset or track is needed by another before that other may use it;

and, subject to that, expressions used in either subsection and in Part I of the Railways Act 1993 have the same meaning in that subsection as they have in that Part.").

Page 125, line 43, leave out ("has") and insert: ("(a) have").

Page 125, line 45, after ("section") insert (", or (b) have ceased to provide such services otherwise than as mentioned in subsection (1A) (za) of this section,").

Page 125, line 47, leave out ("that subsection") and insert ("subsection (1) of that section").

Page 126, line 4, leave out ("in any enactment") and insert ("of or in this section or any other enactment").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 124 [Power of the Board to provide business support services for other operators]:

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 284:

Page 126, line 11, leave out from ("provide") to end of line 16 and insert ("business support services for—

1. the Regulator;
2. any person who provides, or secures the provision of, railway services; or
3. any person carrying on any undertaking which was, immediately before 1st April 1993, carried on by the Board or any wholly owned subsidiary of the Board.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 284, I should like with the leave of the House to speak to Amendments Nos. 285 to 287.

Before speaking to those amendments, perhaps I may, with the leave of the House, answer the point raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter which bowled me. I can now tell my noble friend that I have repaired my wicket: the statutory maximum fine is £5,000. It will be fixed under the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

I turn now to the main amendment in this group, Amendment No. 284, which widens the group of persons to whom British Rail can provide business support services during the privatisation process.

In the next few years, we shall be moving from a position where BR performs practically every function associated with the railway to one where we expect that many of those functions will be provided by the private sector. In the transitional period, it is important that we give BR the powers to be able to provide business support services to all those who will need them.

As it stands, the clause is too restrictive in the range of persons to whom it allows BR to provide business support services by virtue of subsection (1). The amendment remedies that by adding references to the regulator, any person providing or securing the provision of railway services and persons carrying on undertakings recently carried on by the board or a board subsidiary. This would, for example, allow BR to contract to provide temporary assistance in dealing with staff wages and salaries for parts of its business which it had recently sold off. The amendment also confirms that BR will be able to sell tickets on behalf of other operators. The other amendments in this group improve the drafting of the Th11, or are consequential on the main amendment.

In this transitional period, we would not want to deny other railway operators, or existing BR subsidiaries which are subsequently privatised, access to services which the board was best placed to provide. I am sure that the whole House would agree that that would be nonsensical. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendments Nos. 285 to 287:

Page 126, line 22, at end insert:

("() the issuing of tickets;").

Page 126, line 34, at end insert:

("() The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under subsection (3) above is exercisable in relation to any power of the Board to provide business support services, whether under this section or otherwise.").

Page 126, line 39, leave out (""railway" and "railway services" have") and insert (""railway services" has").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 288:

After Clause 124, insert the following new clause:

Amendment of section 13 of the Transport Act 1962

—(1) Section 13 of the Transport Act 1962 (which confers on the British Waterways Board and the Board powers to manufacture and produce items for business purposes) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this section.

(2) After subsection (1) (which confers on the Boards power to undertake activities for the purposes of any business falling within paragraphs (a) to (c) of that subsection), there shall be inserted—

"(1A) Subsection (1) of this section shall have effect, in relation to the Railways Board, with the insertion after paragraph (c) of the following—

"(d) of the Rail Regulator,

(e) of any person who provides, or secures the provision of, railway services, within the meaning of Part I of the Railways Act 1993, or

(f) of any person carrying on any undertaking which was, immediately before 1st April 1993, carried on by the Railways Board or any wholly owned subsidiary of that Board,";

and with the omission of the word "or" immediately preceding that paragraph."

(3) At the end of that section, there shall be added—

"(9) If the Secretary of State is of the opinion that it is no longer necessary, or no longer desirable, for the Railways Board to conduct any of the activities mentioned in subsection (1) above for the purposes of the business of any persons, or of persons of any class or description, mentioned in that subsection, he may by order provide that, as from the date on which the order comes into force, that Board shall cease to have power to conduct the activity in question in relation to the person in question.

(10) An order under subsection (9) above may make such consequential amendments or repeals in any enactment as may appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of, or in connection with, the order.

(11) Any order made under subsection (9) of this section shall be made by statutory instrument, and any such statutory instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(12) Any reference in this section to "business" includes, in the case of the Rail Regulator, a reference to the carrying on of any activity in the exercise of his powers or the performance of his duties.'"').

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 288, I shall with the leave of the House speak to Amendments Nos. 315, 327 and 330.

Amendment No. 288 introduces several new subsections into Section 13 of the Transport Act 1962. As currently framed, Section 13(1) gives BR the power to construct, manufacture, produce, purchase, maintain and repair anything required for its business, or that of the British Waterways Board (the other board surviving from the break-up of the British Transport Commission) or any subsidiary of either of the boards.

The new subsection (IA) will enable BR to use its power under Section 13 for the purpose of the businesses of those persons to whom the board can now supply business support services; that is 1:o say, the regulator, any person who provides or secures the provision of railway services, and, in effect, existing parts of BR which are disposed of in the future.

As I said earlier, in the transitional period during which constituent parts of 13R are transferred to the private sector, we would not want to deny other railway operators, or existing BR subsidiaries which are subsequently privatised, access to goods arid services which the board was best placed to provide. Amendment No. 288 is therefore intended to amend Section 13 of the Transport Act 1962 to bring it broadly into line with Clause 124 of the Bill as amended. By virtue of Government Amendment No. 315, Section 48 of the Transport Act 1968 ceases to apply so far as BR is concerned. Section 48 is considered no longer necessary in the light of Amendment No. 288 to Section 13 of the 1962 Act.

Amendments Nos. 315 and 327 also repeal Section 45 of the Transport Act 1968. We consider this provision, which imposes a duty on BR periodically to review its organisation, to be no longer necessary. Amendment No. 330 is a consequential repeal. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 125 [Bye-laws]:

6 p.m.

The Earl of Dudley moved Amendment No. 288A:

Page 126, line 41, at beginning insert:

("() No owner or operator may make bye-laws having the effect of imposing a charge for access to or from a train through a station upon the holder of a ticket or other authority to travel by, be present on, or leave trains, unless so authorised by the Secretary of State.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall address myself to Amendments Nos. 288A and 288B, since 288B is a drafting amendment dependent on the success or failure of Amendment No. 288A.

The question of rights of access to passengers through stations and to and from trains is clearly a matter of public concern, not only to all rail users but especially to many thousands of commuters in the South East. Clause 125(2) permits a person having management of a station, network or other rail asset, to make by-laws with respect to tickets and regulating the use and working of stations, tracks and railways. I believe your Lordships will agree that, taken in conjunction with other powers in the clause, there are wide powers in this proposal.

I was not present when Clause 125 was agreed to in Committee. But if I have found all the relevant Hansard columns it attracted surprisingly little attention. There were no amendments and no debate. Yet Clause 125 seems to provide a station operator with the necessary powers to issue tickets for the use of a station by rail passengers and if he can issue tickets, he can make charges. At this point I should tell the House that today I received a letter from my noble friend Lord Caithness, aimed at setting my fears at rest. I am grateful to him for taking so much trouble. No doubt he will expand on his letter in his reply.

My noble friend states that the terms of the access agreement between a train operator and station owner, which will be subject to approval by the regulator, will safeguard the rights of passengers as regards access to and from the trains through a station. The relevant clause and subsection of the Bill is Clause 16(1) (b) and it says nothing about passengers. If I am right, there is nothing in that clause, nor in Clause 125 so far as I can tell, nor in the Bill to prohibit in law an additional charge to a valid rail ticket holder for passage through a station, nor to compel arrangements to be made with a network operator to include or absorb relevant station charges in network costs setting the price of the rail ticket. In fact, passengers with rail tickets seem in this Bill to have no right whatsoever of access to and from trains.

My noble friend may know—I do not—whether such a right ever existed in past or present legislation affecting railways. I know that it was irrelevant and unnecessary when station and network were part of the same entity. The Bill changes that scenario. It creates a new situation in which station and network can and probably will be with different ownership.

The question seems to me to be quite clear cut. Can the rail operator be relied upon to make adequate arrangements with the supervision of the regulator under the access agreement for the free passage to and from trains of rail users holding valid rail tickets; or is there a need for that right—that protection for passengers—to be written into the Bill?

I look to the Minister to say that the access agreement will be so dependable and so cast iron as to render my amendments unnecessary. I beg to move.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I do not want to dwell specifically on the amendment, although the noble Earl made a very interesting point. I just want to take noble Lords back to the Committee stage, when I asked the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, about model by-laws. That bears on the subject under this clause. I suggested that it would be useful if model by-laws were produced in order that there should be some conformity across the whole field.

I am grateful to the noble Viscount for writing to me saying that that was unnecessary because of the various bits and pieces (which I shall not go into) in other parts of the regulations. Having heard what has just been said, I wonder whether perhaps a model by-law might be useful.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, for raising this point. We made clear in earlier amendments and discussions that, even when railway stations are privatised, the priority must always be for the travelling public to be able to move through them. But there are problems, particularly in some older stations which could become rather awkward and inconvenient for passengers. I think of some of the older stations with various entrances and exits, some of which are not very salubrious areas, particularly the exits. During the day there may be no problem but at night one may arrive at a station and discover that the main gates of the station have been closed so that passengers must be taken down tunnels and around corners. I can take noble Lords to stations where that could very easily happen.

What right would the travelling public have? It has always been my view and that of other people also that, if I take a train from London to Edinburgh or Glasgow, I am not in Edinburgh or Glasgow when I am held up for some reason or other on platform 10 while (as happened in the old days) someone meticulously examines the tickets and reads every word to make sure that everyone has the proper ticket.

It is important that the amendment be looked at seriously by the Government, whether or not by-laws are to be used. The importance of the traveller being given easy and convenient access, except in very special circumstances, should be emphasised.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dudley for explaining his amendment. I hope that what I shall say in a moment will put his mind fully at ease. Let me deal with the first part of his amendments and reassure him that no by-laws can be made under Clause 125 without the Secretary of State's approval. That is already the position under the clause as drafted. If my noble friend would care to look at subsection (4), he will see that various provisions of Section 67 of the Transport Act 1962 are applied in relation to by-laws made under this clause. These include Section 67(5), which states clearly that no by-laws can come into operation unless and until confirmed by the Minister. I say to my noble friend that his amendment adds nothing to that because the position is already taken care of.

On the more general point, let me also say that there is no suggestion that station owners or operators should be able to levy additional charges on passengers already holding valid tickets for travel on train services operating from the station. The terms of the access agreement between the train operator and the station owner (which will of course be subject to approval by the regulator) will safeguard the rights of passengers as regards access to and from trains, through the station. Access agreements will provide for appropriate charges to be made by the train operator to the station operator, but not, I stress, for additional charges to be imposed on passengers simply for the privilege of crossing the station concourse.

1 am in the happy position of being able to say to my noble friend that, although I am grateful to him for raising this point, there is no need for his amendment.

The Earl of Dudley

My Lords, I am not sure to what extent I followed the argument of my noble friend. The problem with which we are faced is whether or not there should be statutory protection for passengers rather than purely administrative or "between party" agreements protecting and giving right of access to the passenger.

The weakness of my argument is that if one intends to run a train one cannot do so without passengers; if one intends to make adequate arrangements to run the train properly, one must presumably make adequate arrangements for the passengers to reach that train. I am not entirely satisfied that there is enough in the Bill to ensure that those arrangements will be made or that the station operator could not impose charges if he felt it was in the interests of shareholders so to do. However, I shall go along with the argument of my noble friend and, in the light of his explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 288B not moved.]

Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 289:

After Clause 127, insert the following new clause:

("Application of building regulations

Part M of the Building Regulations 1991 shall have effect in relation to railway premises.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 289 proposes a new clause to the Bill which is required to ensure the accessibility of railway premises to disabled people.

The law relating to the building standards required of railway premises is rather complex. The Bill currently adopts health and safety at work legislation and a number of special Acts in order to safeguard the safety of railway users and employees with regard to the proper construction and safe operation of transport systems. I am advised that the current provisions may well he inadequate to meet the needs of disabled passengers and the amendment is required to ensure that railway premises are brought unambiguously within the scope of building regulations.

Part M of the building regulations makes provision for premises to comply with a number of standards to meet the needs of disabled people. They apply to any new construction and any major alteration or refurbishment. Areas which would be of relevance to railway premises include alteration to platforms, ticket barriers, entrances, exits, changes of level and alterations to passenger facilities such as lavatories, waiting rooms, refreshment areas and ticket offices.

The regulations have been successfully operated for a number of years and have made a significant contribution to the increased mobility of disabled people in relation to public buildings, but not in relation to railway premises. I consider that either Railtrack or franchised train operators should be required to comply with the regulations. At present, Section 4 of the Building Act 1984 statutorily exempts undertakers such as British Rail from compliance with the regulations. I believe that provisions in the Bill which allow railway premises to be owned and operated on a commercial basis should lead to railway premises being subject to the same requirements as all other commercial premises in terms of disabled access.

I am advised that recent construction of the new station, Waterloo International, and major alterations at Liverpool Street station provide examples of the problems which exist at the present time. The stations fail to provide features which are required by the regulations. For example, steps are not highlighted at the edges; there are no tactile warnings at the tops of stairs and the handrail design is not appropriate to the needs of disabled passengers.

Although the Bill makes provision for consultation with DPTAC and other groups, recent experience involving the construction of Manchester Airport station suggests that such advice is unlikely to be followed. The report, which details the shortcomings, has been produced by the British Rail Advisory Group. All three buildings that I mentioned are unsatisfactory from the point of view of disabled access. I am concerned that the situation may be repeated in future major developments such as the rail link to Heathrow Airport and the refurbishment of other stations. The amendment therefore is required to safeguard the future use of the railway system by disabled passengers. I beg to move.

6.15 p.m.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

My Lords, I support the amendment most warmly. As the noble Lord said, it only applies to new constructions or ones undergoing major alterations or refurbishment. Therefore it is not asking for vast amounts of money to be spent on old premises not already undergoing rebuilding. But it will save much money if things are done right in the first place or when the building is being refurbished.

The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, mentioned three places which are unsatisfactory. A year or two ago Oxford Station also was totally refurbished and would have come under Part M. The planners got it completely wrong. One could only reach one side of the line by going over a footbridge, which was totally inaccessible to wheelchairs. A large lift had to be built to take people up to the footbridge to take them over the line. I wonder how much money could have been saved if it had been done right in the first place.

There have been reports that approved document M may be deregulated. Would that mean that it would be only an advisory document? I hope that the Minister can say something on the proposed status of document M and reassure us that there are no plans to deregulate it. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, it has been an extremely useful document and we are grateful for it.

I support the amendment wholeheartedly. It is important that the approved document M applies to railway stations and retains its teeth.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, I too support the amendment. The evidence disclosed by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is extremely disturbing. Here we have a number of brand new stations and yet they are deficient in many material respects with regard to provision for people suffering from disability. I ask the Minister to comment on how such a situation was permitted to evolve.

It would not be a strong response for British Rail to offer in rebuttal the explanation that it is exempt from compliance with the regulations. There is a moral duty to make provision of this kind and British Rail has omitted so to do. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness were therefore right to table the amendment. They are right also to anticipate that there may be major problems which need to be addressed in regard to future developments.

Of course, even if it was right to exempt British Rail from compliance with the regulations—I am doubtful whether that should have been done in the first place, but it is a fact of life—it is important to remember that we are now dealing with a different regime. The new regime will be involved in the pursuit of commercialisation and profit. I do not complain particularly about that. But if that is right, it is all the more imperative that existing exemptions should no longer apply. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), have done a great service to the House in raising this matter and I shall listen with interest to the Minister's response.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend for his explanation.

British Rail, along with other statutory undertakers, currently enjoys exemption from the building regulations in respect of buildings belonging to it and used for the purposes of its undertaking. This exemption for statutory undertakers is of long standing. I understand it dates back at least to the Public Health Act 1936. It recognises that the buildings of statutory undertakers are largely specialist structures to which many of the provisions of the building regulations would not be appropriate. My noble friend's amendment would remove the exemption in future as regards all railway premises so far as concerns Part M—access and facilities for disabled persons. The intended effect is to bring all railway premises within the requirements of the relevant part of the regulations. These relate to such matters as provision for access to, and use of, premises by people in wheelchairs, and provision of wheelchair-accessible toilets.

Indeed, we see no reason at this time why the present situation should be changed. Railtrack will be the natural successor to BR in terms of the rights and obligations of statutory undertakers, both in this field and others. It will step into BR's shoes, so to speak, in this area. Any necessary consequential amendments to the definition of "statutory undertaker" in the Building Act 1984 to ensure that Railtrack is a statutory undertaker for the purposes of the Building Act can be made by order under Clause 148.

I hope my noble friend will not feel that my response so far has been unduly negative. The Government do not rule out the possibility of reviewing the exemptions under the Building Act 1984 at some time in the future. But such a review would be better carried out, I am sure your Lordships would agree, across the board since, as I have said, the exemptions apply to all statutory undertakers.

Meanwhile, of course, and notwithstanding its statutory exemption, British Rail has made considerable efforts in making its stations accessible to disabled people and it is to be commended for doing so. But we must accept the realities, both practical and financial, which constrain what can be done. However, as mentioned earlier in our proceedings, the Bill places a duty on the regulator in Clause 4 to have regard to the interests of persons who are disabled, and in Clause 68 to prepare and publish a code of practice for protecting the interests of disabled users of passenger and station services and to encourage its adoption and implementation in consultation with DPTAC. So there is already good provision in the Bill to ensure that these matters will be kept well to the fore.

I listened carefully to what my noble friend had to say about DPTAC. I wonder whether, on reflection, and in view of what I have said about Clauses 4 and 68, the situation in the future will not be as gloomy as my noble friend has portrayed it to be in the past. I noted what the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), had to say about Oxford station. I agree with her. What a wasted opportunity of a redevelopment. I wish that something better had been done there. Perhaps I may take up her other point about deregulation of document M. My information is that no decisions have been taken as to whether the current provisions of Part M of the building regulations should be deregulated. The matter has been reviewed from time to time but no proposals are currently under consideration.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, can he impart to the House any information about the points which he has just addressed? First, he said that a code of practice would be applied. How far are the Government advanced in dealing with that issue? Does he not feel that there was a moral obligation on British Rail to deal with the kind of issues which were outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and about which British Rail was either careless or omitted to do anything?

I agree with the noble Earl entirely. Where British Rail has addressed these issues it has done very well and needs to be complimented. The Minister said that it would be better to deal with questions of exemption right across the board. He did not give an undertaking that that would be done. Is he prepared to give an undertaking that this matter is currently being addressed by the Government? Can he also give a timescale, if that is the case, within which that is likely to be completed? Otherwise one can envisage the situation going on for a very long time and persisting in a way which enables construction works to be undertaken in the manner exemplified by Liverpool Street and the other examples cited during the debate. I feel that more precise information should be given. Time is of the essence. When one is dealing with new developments of this kind it is extremely disappointing, to say the very least, that such a situation should have arisen. One hopes that it will not be repeated in the future. Leaving the matter to one side for rather a long time while codes of conduct are worked out is unsatisfactory.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, before my noble friend responds to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will he be kind enough to tell the House what other statutory undertakings are generally accessible to vast numbers of the general public?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, with regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, it is the regulator in Clause 68 who will have to draw up the code with regard to protecting the interests of disabled passengers. He is under a duty under Clause 4 to have regard to the interests of persons who are disabled. But the regulator can only be appointed after the Bill has become an Act. I would stress the point—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will appreciate this—that the code will be drawn up after consultation with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. I am sure that DPTA.0 will make strong representations and that careful note has been taken of the feeling of your Lordships' House on the issue.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves this point, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, that DPTAC was ignored in relation to Manchester Airport station. It was news to me but that is what he alleged. If that is the case, why should not DPTAC be ignored in the future? What the noble Lord seeks is some reassurance on the face of the Bill. I can see why. If DPTAC, which is a very worthy organisation, of which I approve tremendously, is being ignored by statutory undertakers, it is about time we put something on the face of the Bill to force these people to do as they ought to do.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, that is why I said in my earlier reply that I hoped that the situation in the future would not be as gloomy as my noble friend Lord Swinfen had portrayed it to be until now. It is because of the duties on the face of the Bill and the preparation of the code of practice in consultation with DPTAC that I feel that the situation will be better in the future.

With regard to a possible review of the whole of the building regulations, I cannot give a firm assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, about the timing of a review. However, I can give him this reassurance. I shall pass on his comments to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State about his concern on this matter.

My noble friend Lord Swinfen asked me about other statutory undertakers that have the same amount of public access as British Rail. At the moment I cannot think of one offhand. If I can think of one, shall let my noble friend know.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, it was never my intention this evening to press this amendment to a Division because it is the first time that I have raised it during our discussions on the Bill. However, I give fair warning to my noble friend that when I have read Hansard, and digested it, I may well come back to the matter at Third Reading.

The arguments put forward by my noble friend in attempting to reject the amendment have in my view been all in favour of it. He has told the House that he knows of no other statutory undertaking that has such access for so many members of the public. We have a duty in this country to the public at large, to those with disabilities, which in many respects includes the elderly, and to those with small children and large quantities of luggage moving from place to place.

The facilities that I am suggesting—the regulations that I should like to have put on the face of the Bill—would help far more than just physically disabled people. They would help my noble friend to carry his briefing material home at the weekend. I am sure that he does take his work home at the weekend, as do most other Members of the House. My noble friend commented on Oxford Station. I could have said nothing better myself in favour of the amendment.

I hope that between now and Third Reading my noble friend and his advisers will give this matter serious consideration. I would like to see an amendment—possibly better drafted than my own—brought forward by the Government at the next stage of the Bill to achieve exactly the same ends.

The regulations that I want enforced on stations say that they will not apply unless there is a complete rebuild or a major alteration. They will not be brought into effect very often. But I believe that by not accepting this amendment, or bringing forward another, the Government are once again shooting themselves in the foot. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before seven o'clock.