Private Bills (Hansard, 17 May 1991)

§ Mr. Rifkind

We have completed our consideration of the responses to the Government's consultation document "Private Bills and New Procedures" (HMSO ref Cm. 1110) which set out proposals for a new order-making procedure to replace private Bills as the method by which railway, rapid transit and a wider range of harbour works would in future be authorised, as the Joint Committee recommended. Over 100 bodies or individuals responded and the majority supported the principle of the proposed reform, which would relieve Parliament of a significant, and growing, volume of private business relating to works projects.

The Government are persuaded, in the light of the generally favourable reaction to the proposals, that legislation should be introduced at the earliest opportunity to establish new order-making powers for railway, tramway and other rapid transit systems, and inland waterway works, and to extend the range of harbour orders. The procedures will be broadly similar to those outlined in paragraphs 14 and 15 and 23 to 29 of the consultation document except in regard to two important aspects.

For schemes of national significance we now propose that Parliament should have a role earlier in the procedure; issues of policy and principle would be 301W considered by Parliament separately and in advance of public inquiries. This change will enable Parliament to debate and establish the principle of the very biggest schemes so that the subsequent public inquiry would be limited to considerations of more local and detailed aspects for which it is better suited. We see this as a more satisfactory arrangement. If Parliament does not like the scheme in principle neither promoters nor objectors would be put to the expense of a public inquiry. Moreover, public inquiries into schemes of national significance undertaken before the principle has been settled could become unmanageable and extremely long. Finally we were persuaded by the argument of some consultees that the rejection of a project by Parliament after a public inquiry might serve to undermine the public inquiry system.

Parliamentary consideration would take the form of a debate on a resolution moved by the Government in both Houses. Parliament would, of course, require sufficient information to make a decision. We expect that the draft order, including an assessment of the impact on the environment, would be available before a debate took place. This would provide the basis for justifying the project in broad terms.

Secondly, the Government have concluded that the proposal for local authorities to deal with a first tier of schemes of essentially local significance should be dropped. These schemes would instead be decided by Ministers or be delegated to persons appointed by the Secretary of State. Only a small number of respondents to the consultation document expressed enthusiasm for this proposal and we consider that too few schemes would be suitable for decisions by local authorities to warrant establishing a separate procedure to handle them.

The proposal to allow safety to be one of the factors in determining whether footpaths and bridleways should be stopped up or diverted—paragraphs 37 to 40 of the consultation document—will, in the light of the responses, be limited in the Bill to rights of way crossing railways.

The recommendation that other works projects which require a private Bill should also be dealt with by orders has been well received. We are still considering ways in which this might best be achieved, but we agree in principle that they should be dealt with outside Parliament.

The Government will continue to consult those directly affected by these proposals as detailed procedures are worked up. They are also in contact with a range of environmental and other interests who will wish to express views on these matters.