HC Deb 22 July 1987 vol 120 cc203-4W
Mr. Thurnham

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on implementation of the recommendations made in the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the British Railways Board's property activities, published in June 1985; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Mitchell

The Railways Board is continuing to make good progress in implementing the commission's recommendations, and I am placing copies of its second response in the Library of the House.

A number of improvements have been made in the British Rail property board's organisation and management structure. This action has also taken account of advice from consultants appointed by the property boa rd to review its organisation, management structure, systems and procedures, and working practices. I am pleased to note that simpler procedures for releasing land no longer needed for the railway have been introduced. In particular, I welcome the opportunities for increased sales of surplus land that the board has identified, amounting to an additional £100 million in its latest business plan. The board's development division has also been reviewed and reorganised, taking account of recommendations from a group of private sector property consultants.

Good progress is also being made in increasing the commercial exploitation of the board's operational property, with more extensive private sector involvement. The arch refurbishment programme, which generates income and helps the environment, has been stepped up to cover over 700 schemes over the last two years, and is expected to continue at a high level, and greater competition is being introduced in station trading.

I am also placing in the Library a copy of' my Department's review of the board's liabilities for property no longer needed for the railway, particularly in connection with closed branch lines, as proposed by the commission. The property board's current and forecast levels of expenditure in this area are small in relation to the board's overall finances, and we see no case for removing the liabilities or for separately funding them. The evidence suggests that the property board should continue broadly with its present maintenance policies, negotiating with local highway authorities and other interested parties to shed its liabilities on the basis of voluntary agreements, taking every opportunity to transfer individual liabilities where this makes financial sense.

The Department will assist the board to establish an English and Welsh viaducts committee, similar to that which exists in Scotland, in order to provide a forum for considering the future of listed viaducts on closed railway lines, and we will support a further application to the Charity Commissioners seeking charitable status for the Railway Heritage Trust, if the board and the trust judge it advantageous. We will also keep under review the question of ownership and statutory responsibility for the board's road overbridges.

Forward to