Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Portillo : I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 47, line 35, after this Act' insert
(including any provision of Part III as applied by regulations made under section 41 of this Act) or under regulations made under section 42 of this Act'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 9.
Mr. Portillo These are technical amendments. They extend the scope of clause 49 and of section 37 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 in respect of regulations relating to air and sea cargo agents and regulations requiring the reporting of aviation and maritime security occurrences. If an offence under any of these regulations is committed by a body corporate, and with the connivance of, or because of the neglect of, a director or other similar senior officer of the company, that person will also be guilty of the offence.
Amendment agreed to.
1. This Schedule applies to compensation under section (Compensation in respect of certain measures taken under Part III) of this Act (in this Schedule referred to as "the principal section").
2. No compensation to which this Schedule applies shall be payable unless the person to whom it is payable in accordance with the principal section (or in accordance with regulations made under paragraph 5 below) serves on the person by whom the measures in question were taken a notice in writing claiming compensation under that section, and that notice is served before the end of the period of two years from the completion of the measures.
3. In relation to any measures taken by any person on land outside a harbour area, any reference in the principal section to a direction or enforcement notice, or to compliance with a direction or enforcement notice, is to be construed as if subsection (6) of section 26 of this Act were omitted.
4. In calculating value for any of the purposes of the principal section--
(a) rules (2) to (4) of the rules set out in section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 apply with the necessary modifications, and (
(b) if the interest to be valued is subject to a mortgage, it is to be treated as if it were not subject to the mortgage.
5. Regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument may make provision--
(a) requiring compensation to which this Schedule applies, in such cases as may be specified in the
Column 635
regulations, to be paid to a person other than the person entitled to it in accordance with the principal section,(b
as to the application of any compensation to which this Schedule applies, or any part of it, in cases where the right to claim compensation is exercisable by reference to an interest in land which is subject to a mortgage, or to a rent-charge, or to the trusts of a settlement, or, in Scotland, to a feuduty or ground annual or to the purposes of a trust, or which was so subject at a time specified in the regulations, or
(c
as to any assumptions to be made, or matters to be taken into or left out of account, for the purpose of assessing any compensation to which this Schedule applies.
6. A statutory instrument containing regulations made under paragraph 5 above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
7. Any dispute arising under the principal section or under this Schedule, whether as to the right to any compensation or as to the amount of any compensation or otherwise, shall be referred to and determined by the Lands Tribunal.
8. In the application of this Schedule to Scotland--
(a) the reference in paragraph 4(a) to section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 is to be construed as a reference to section 12 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963, and
(b) the reference in paragraph 7 to the Lands Tribunal is to be construed as a reference to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. 9. In the application of this Schedule to Northern Ireland (
(a) the reference in paragraph 4(a) to section 5 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 is to be construed, notwithstanding paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Land Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (which confines the operation of that Order to matters within the legislative competence of the Parliament of Northern Ireland), as a reference to Article 6(1) of that Order, and
(b) the reference in paragraph 7 to the Lands Tribunal is to be construed as a reference to the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland. 10. In this Schedule "mortgage" includes any charge or lien on any property for securing money or money's worth, and any heritable security within the meaning of section 9(8) of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970.'.-- [Mr. Portillo.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Amendment made : No. 9, in page 56, line 11, at end insert-- 17A. In section 37 of that Act (offences by bodies corporate) for "or under regulations made under section 33" there is substituted "(including any provision of Part II as applied by regulations made under section 21F of this Act) or under regulations made under section 21G.".'.-- [Mr. Portillo.]
Order for Third Reading read.
6.41 pm
Mr. Portillo : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
A number of hon. Members wish to speak on Third Reading, so my speech will be brief. The Bill has received general support throughout its stages. We had an interesting Second Reading debate on a number of matters relating to aviation and maritime security. However, there
Column 636
were no significant differences of opinion about the Bill's proposals. Harmony continued throughout the Committee proceedings. Today, we have had our most serious disagreements. The positions adopted by the Government and the Opposition have been typical. Our response, predictably, has been that we should minimise the role of Government where it is unnecessary to extend it. The Opposition's response, predictably, has been that the establishment of a central fund to recycle money could add to security. I did not expect the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) to agree with me, but I am pleased that it was only a rare moment of disagreement between the two sides.Outside the House, the Bill's proposals have been widely welcomed, certainly by the aviation industry and the police. However, they have been given a less warm welcome by the maritime industry, which believes that the existing voluntary arrangements are working satisfactorily. I can reassure the maritime industry that the legislation will ensure that security measures are applied even-handedly to foreign as well as to British ships. The Government believe that voluntary action is no longer adequate and that standards should be set and enforced throughout the industry. I assure the House that the legal sanctions will probably be used infrequently. However, it is important that reserve powers are available to be used if needed.
I believe that we have made important progress towards establishing what I hope will become an Act of Parliament which will enable us to tighten up our defences against terrorism in the aviation and maritime industries. I commend the Bill to the House.
6.44 pm
Mr. Ronnie Fearn (Southport) : I made it clear from the outset in Committee that I support all moves to strengthen security arrangements at our airports and seaports. I was concerned about the extent of the powers contained in the Bill, as first printed, but I am pleased to say that many of my fears were allayed in Committee. The Minister knows that I have always been concerned about the strange anomaly that, to protect the freedom of our people--in this case, freedom of movement--we are giving the Government and other designated people the very powers that, in different circumstances, could be used to take freedom away.
Although we have uppermost in our minds the fact that we are endeavouring to defeat terrorism, the extensive powers of searches of persons and property--which are to be authorised by the owners and operators of our aerodromes, ports and the ships and aircraft that use our ports and by certain other categories of person under directives from the Secretary of State--are still very wide. As drafted, the Bill makes it clear that most of the searches will be carried out by private security personnel. In the case of our harbours, the searches are likely to be conducted by hand. There is still no code of conduct or set of standards to cover such searches ; nor is there any mechanism to monitor the process or to set up a complaints procedure. I mentioned that point in Committee on two separate occasions. I still consider such a mechanism to be essential. I am still worried about the extensive nature of this power of search, which can reach land, property and personnel far removed from any airport or harbour.
Column 637
In Committee, I tried to amend the clause relating to the use of firearms. I am mindful that, in reply, the Minister said : "I advise the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) that his amendment No. 99 has considerable attraction. I intend to reconsider the phraseology of this part of the Bill, although I am not sure that what he proposes is strictly necessary. it is clear that the mechanism for securing searches by armed constables would operate when a person receiving a direction got in touch with the chief constable of a local police force, who would ensure that arms were carried by the policemen. That would happen in any case, but there maybe advantage in reviewing the wording.A specific fault in the hon. Gentleman's wording is that it would require constables to be authorised to carry firearms, but that is not enough. We want to ensure that they actually carry them if that has been specified in the direction. For that reason, I shall not accept his wording. However, I should like to review it to see whether we can provide something better."-- Official Report, Standing Committee A, 15 February 1990 ; c. 139.]
I see no evidence of that reconsideration, or of a review or of the provison of something better. Perhaps the Minister could say why. As I have already stated, with the exceptions that I have mentioned, I feel that this is a good Bill. I therefore support it, as it will be an effective vehicle to combat terrorism.
6.47 pm
Mr. Wilshire : I was pleased to welcome the Bill when it was given its Second Reading. Both in Committee and on Report, it has been further strengthened by the changes that have been made. However, I do not believe that the process should stop here. My hon. Friends the Ministers for Public Transport and for Aviation and Shipping are well aware that several matters still need to be considered. When the Bill reaches another place, I hope that it will be possible to introduce further changes.
The Bill improves security both at airports and at seaports. It clarifies responsibilities that have never been clarified before. The Secretary of State's role is defined. The Bill provides him with new powers to carry out his responsibilities. It ensures that everyone with access to airside at airports and with access to ships is responsible for public safety.
The Bill also improves the checking and monitoring of security. The powers of the inspectorate at airports are to be strengthened. The Bill will provide it with greater powers to carry out checks. However, the suggestion that, because there will be more inspectors, there will, for the first time, be random tests of the system is far from the truth. All sorts of people have been trying to test the system for a long time, but more inspectors will be a welcome addition. One of the most important improvements made in Committee was the insertion of the requirement that all future lapses in security must be reported.
The Bill provides effective sanctions that will enable enforcement to take place properly. It activates the Montreal protocol and creates new offences ; the entire Committee agreed that that was about time too.
The Bill closes some loopholes that have existed for some time. In future, businesses that operate at an airport but also have premises away from the airport will find that security will catch up with them wherever they may be operating. That is not before time.
Column 638
In Committee, it was also made clear that the cargo procedures, particularly at airports, would be tightened up. I welcome that, as does the entire aviation industry, but there is still some way to go ; more thought is necessary before we can be absolutely certain that we have done everything possible to improve our existing cargo systems. Although the Bill contains all those worthwhile provisions, we have to remember that no Bill will ever be a cure-all for security, as 100 per cent. security is impossible. However many Bills go through the House, the personal responsibility of every passenger and employee and the eternal vigilance of all concerned are the only ways to maximise security, even when the Bill is enacted.When we pass the Bill, we need to avoid three traps. First, we must not pretend to the public that we can achieve a level of security that cannot be attained, because we do not have the technology. Secondly, we must beware of bringing the system to a halt by demanding too many checks on huge numbers of people. Thirdly, as I said on Second Reading, we must avoid always looking backwards to try to close loopholes after a terrorist has found them. Having said that, I wish the Bill well. I believe that it is a practical response to a deeply worrying problem for the public.
6.52 pm
Mr. Snape : Earlier in our deliberations, the Minister of State said that, at every stage of the Bill, the debate has been fairly harmonious and good-tempered. We endorse those sentiments. Right from the outset, the Opposition have been in a somewhat unusual position. Normally, we oppose Government legislation, but on this occasion we felt that there was much to be said in favour of the Bill, although we were unhappy with some aspects of it and felt that some loopholes should be closed. We have not been successful in closing those loopholes, but at each stage we were grateful to the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State for listening to the arguments, and for responding positively when they were able to do so and courteously when they were not. That is not always the case on such legislation.
From the outset, the Opposition believed and insisted that there should be a time schedule within which all aircraft baggage for transfer and in hold, as well as that carried by passengers, should be properly screened. We have not yet reached that laudable objective, although we have secured a pledge from the Minister of State that the Government will work towards it and, hopefully, it will be achieved sooner rather than later.
We remain of the view that the major obstacle to achieving that desirable goal is money. Notwithstanding the views that have been expressed this evening, we firmly believe that an aviation security fund will be necessary to fund security adequately at Britain's airports.
In Committee, we introduced the concept that a threat to damage or interfere with the safe passage of an airliner should be an offence. That view was shared by many Members on both sides of the Committee. Perhaps the Government's attitude will change. The perceived threat to airlines and airliners is often worrying to passengers. All too often, those who make such threats are aware that some people feel terrified, or at least uncomfortable, when they board an aircraft. The examples that we discussed in
Column 639
Committee showed that the threats themselves caused enormous concern to passengers and led to heavy delays and extra expense for the airlines involved.Most of the maritime clauses of the Bill have been dealt with more than adequately by my hon. Friends the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran). We remain concerned and unhappy about the amount of private policing that takes place and will continue to take place around our docks and harbours. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) is not present, although I am sure there are good reasons for his absence. Some of the amendments that he tabled in Committee left us in no doubt about the concern of the Police Federation that so many policing duties are bring carried out by private security firms. In Committee, the Opposition attempted to do something about the principle of non-police officers doing work that should be carried out by the police.
We attempted to persuade the Minister to accept amendments that would have laid down minimum standards of pay and working conditions within the private security industry before those private security firms were employed at docks, harbours or airports. As we were unsuccessful in our attempts to persuade the Government that such amendments were necessary, we hope that their refusal to accede to those eminently reasonable demands will not rebound on them in the form of further breaches of security particularly at our docks and harbours in future.
We believe that the Bill is basically good. All right hon. and hon. Members are anxious that security at our airports, harbours and docks is the best that money can buy, regardless of where that money comes from. The fact that there was so much harmony in Committee illustrates the depth of feeling and concern, which crosses party lines. We do not whole-heartedly support every clause. We tried to close one or two gaps in the Bill, and the fact that we were unable to do so causes us concern. The parts of the Bill that must be strengthened will be considered in another place, so I conclude by expressing the Opposition's thanks to the Minister for Public Transport and the Under-Secretary for a courteous and informative debate, and I hope that they would reciprocate those sentiments. Question put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.
Column 640
Order for Second Reading read.
7 pm
Mr. David Gilroy Bevan (Birmingham, Yardley) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am aware that there have been objections to the private Bill procedure. The word "Parliament" derives from the French "parler"--to talk. Supporters of the Bill do not object to the Bill being debated, but moving its Second Reading is the only way it can be heard. We must therefore follow that procedure. The House may consider a better procedure in the future, and that might commend itself, but at present this is the only procedure available.
One or two hon. Members wish to oppose the Bill, and one of the happy outcomes of this debate is that they will be able to do so. I hope that they will bear in mind--I shall refer to this in detail later--the referendum carried out by the promoters, showing a majority in favour of the Bill among those who will be affected by it. Some 62 per cent. of those polled were in favour, 15 per cent. opposed it and 22 per cent. were uncertain.
The Bill follows a long tradition that was initiated by Bills in the 18th century to construct canals and by Bills in the last century to construct railways. The same routine was used when the Birmingham-London railway was constructed in 1832. The canal that runs through my constituency was subject to the same procedure. Transportation patterns have changed enormously in the past few decades. When I served on the transport committee in Birmingham, it was said that the black country was no more than a bicycle ride away from a chap's place of work or home. That was the limit of his transport horizons. I remember being told by the then general manager that there was no connection between the black country and Birmingham, and that no one wished to travel on such a route. How different transport has become. We now have lines between Wolverhampton, the black country and Birmingham which were established by the passing of the first Act to build a line connecting Wolverhampton to Birmingham.
All the surrounding areas have changed. The reference in "Jerusalem" to the dark satanic mills of industry no longer applies. They are now much more pleasant to work in and more pleasant environmentally. The back-to-back houses of the early industrial revolution have changed and are now pleasant villas in which to live. Their occupants want an alternative transport system. We have seen green changes, environmental facelifting and cosmetic work throughout the area. One of the advantages of the Bill is that, wherever the line runs, it will continue that trail of environmentally acceptable measures.
Birmingham and many black country towns used to have tramways. There was a horse trough in the centre of Moseley, from which horses would drink before pulling trams on the last part of their journey up St. Mary's hill. Trams were abolished in the 1950s and in my office I have a picture of the last tram.
I believe that the Midland metro will provide a better form of transport than the trams. I travelled down Bristol road to school on a tram. It was a safe method of transport, and the only method that did not provide one with an excuse for being late. The trams were open-ended, and many a friendly cap used to exit from either end of them.
Column 641
Constraints on transport in urban areas have led to demands for an alternative form of transport. In previous decades, attempts were made to legislate against the car. They have not been successful, and car usage has increased enormously. It was my lot as second chairman of the West Midlands passenger transport authority to draw up the west midlands transport plan and to include a paragraph that we should bring back an electric light railway to supplement existing transport systems. We had introduced the cross-city railway line in Tyseley, and the 80 marshalling places for it, on a shoestring of about £8 million, compared with the £300 million that Newcastle was lucky to obtain for its heavy rail system. We did not begrudge Newcastle that excellent system, which we inspected many times, but we had to manage on a shoestring, and in only the past few weeks has the Secretary of State for Transport given permission for the electrification of that cross-city line, which we hope will be completed within two years. That is bad enough. The lead-in time was long, and we hope that the Bill will give us a chance to make up some of the lost time and lost line.Transport debates have always dealt with the differences between highways and railways, but there has been no need for that. Under the integrated transport system initiated following the Midland Metro Act 1989, buses and cars were provided with free car parks, enabling their passengers to use the trains. Usage on one line increased by 1, 500 per cent.
Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr) : Does the hon. Gentleman accept that probably the only justification for ever providing free car parking is as part of an integrated transport system? Does he agree that free parking provided by employers and others should be a taxable perk to encourage people to use transit systems?
Mr. Bevan : I note that point. I would not like to comment on tax- free perks, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the necessity for free parking. I have always resisted any attempt to levy a charge in the midlands.
Five new stations have been built in Birmingham this century. Many more have been refurbished ; dozens of free car parks have been provided ; and the lines have been upgraded to take heavy rolling stock. Much more must be done. The Bill authorises the construction of the second and third stages of the network. Its capital costs will be substantial--about £224 million for the Birmingham-Solihull route and £139 million for the black country route. I hope that the stock will be similar to that operating in Grenoble, which is the watershed in terms of light railways. The system is ecologically elegant, being whisper-quiet and attractive. I hope that it will be made in Britain, perhaps even in Birmingham.
Progress on a previous Bill stopped because the proposal would have destroyed far too much property and interfered with the rights of citizens and was for the wrong place at the wrong time. The task was again taken up by the West Midlands passenger transport executive, now called Centro. It has aimed to introduce a rapid rail system in the best possible way, wherever possible using disused railway lines or using designated or on- street tramways. Although there have been a few objections, the project has cross-party support on all seven metropolitan district
Column 642
councils--Birmingham city council and the metropolitan borough councils of Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton.The west midlands metro system will play an important part in reversing the declining use of public transport. It will make a major contribution in regenerating derelict or economically depressed areas and will bring major benefits in improving the environment. The system is a constant factor of success elsewhere, being well-used and patronised throughout the world. On my visits as a member of the Select Committee on Transport, I have been impressed by rapid rail transit systems in the United States, Canada and throughout Europe, where towns vie with one another to introduce their own metropolitan transit system. I am determined that our area will not be behind. In making this move, we will initiate one of the most modern systems in the world.
Extensive consultation has been carried out. The Bill's sponsors respectfully ask that the House give the Bill a Second Reading. The procedure that we are following differs slightly from the normal procedure for a public Bill. Granting a Second Reading will merely allow the Bill to proceed to Committee where it will be fully examined.
The Bill's aims are to relieve traffic congestion, bring about economic regeneration, ensure increased use of the public transport network and, attendant upon the work, bring about environmental improvements. The first stage provides for 20 km of line linking Birmingham Snow Hill, a station that has recently been rebuilt, to Wolverhampton, at a cost of £60 million. The Bill providing for that work received the Royal Assent in November 1989, without objection. The light transit system provided for by this legislation will consist of a modern lightweight tram which has low floor boarding and runs on a standard gauge track. It will be fume-free, being powered by overhead electricity. It will be able to operate on either designated track or on shared road. It will be similar to the Grenoble design, of which I have full details, although I shall merely say that it will have a two-unit capacity providing room for 250 people, 75 seated and the rest standing.
The system's benefits are that it will relieve traffic congestion and increase mobility because of the low floor, it is safe, environmentally friendly, fume-free and reliable and it compares favourably with other modes of transport. For my money, it is the finest system that I have seen. It will provide direct access to towns and shopping centres. Its advantages over roads are that it is safer, has lower costs and has less environmental impact. Recent transport studies do not propose roads as a solution to transport needs in urban areas. The aim of the state-of-the-art systems is to get the right mix between roads and rail, including light railways and other forms of transport.
This system has much lower costs than heavy rail and has less environmental impact. It is more flexible, being capable of negotiating tighter bends and steeper gradients. It can share the roads with other traffic and it gives greater penetration into city areas. Compares with buses, it is more reliable, cleaner and fume-free, has greater capacity, is faster and more modern and has an upmarket image. Compared with the requirements of busways and bus priorities, it uses less space, is easier to control, can share road space and is cheaper to operate. Compared with trolley buses, it is faster and more efficient. Many other comparisons could be made.
Column 643
The Bill provides for a transport route from Birmingham Five Ways, one of the five stations built this century. It will go underground through the city centre to the Birmingham Heartlands development area, a 2,000-acre redevelopment, to Bromford, Castle Bromwich, Chelmsley Wood, Arlington business park and the national exhibition centre, which is already a world beater, making Birmingham and the midlands one of the most important strategic areas in the world--Mr. Iain Mills (Meriden) : Hear, hear.
Mr. Bevan : The route runs through the constituency of my hon. Friend who has applauded its existence. I am sure that he will applaud the necessary transport survey. The route will take in Birmingham international railway station and Birmingham international airport. The length will be 26 km, and there will be 34 stops. Twenty-four vehicles will be required, the frequency will be every five minutes, and the cost will be £240 million.
Then the line will go underground--under the city centre. Underground stations will serve the new international convention centre, the town hall, New street and Corporation street. The line will surface at Aston university and the general hospital--if the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and I, together with our colleagues, are able to have that preserved in the health plan. The underground section will cost £100 million.
From Wolverhampton, line 3 will go to Dudley town centre, via Wednesfield, Walsall, Darlaston and Wednesbury. It will cross line 1 at the Sandwell 2000 development. It will serve Tipton, too. Indeed, it will link all those towns in the black country whose citizens used to want to cover small distances. The length will be 26 km, there will be 32 stops and 11 vehicles, frequency will be every 10 minutes, and the cost will be £139 million.
Major feasibility studies were undertaken to choose the route. These were partly funded by the EEC. Suffice it to say that, in the end, the district councils selected the routes on the basis of minimum effect on residential property. In the case of line 1, no residential property whatsoever will be taken out. In the case of line 2, only some residential property in a redevelopment area will be affected.
Potential passenger use, cost, environmental effects and development proposals, as well as practicability of construction, were borne in mind. Each passenger stop will be 60 m long--sufficient to accommodate two units. Stops will be located about every 600 to 800 m, as in the case of bus stops. Kerb height will be twice the average, so that in most places the step will be precisely level. There will be a slightly inclined ramp to give pushchairs and wheelchairs access. Incidentally, a disabled passenger will be able to press a button on the tram, at the point of exit, to bring out a pneumatic step to bridge the two-inch gap between the vehicle and the kerb. Thus there will be completely safe and smooth exit for disabled people.
No decisions about stops have yet been made. Ultimately that will be a matter for the council, after consultation with local residents. Consultation has followed a very intense pattern. Since the launch in 1987, many videos have been shown and a dedicated exhibition bus has toured round. In 1989, 300 six-minute videos were sent to residents' associations, community groups and local political parties ; 64,000 leaflets were distributed ; 95 presentations were given to business groups, chambers of
Column 644
commerce, rotary clubs, breakfast clubs, local groups and CBI groups ; 17 exhibitions were mounted at conferences and transport events ; and the exhibition bus appeared on 72 days at 40 venues. Regarding the Bill, 115,000 leaflets were distributed within 1 km of the line of route immediately after the local council announced the proposed route. Ten different leaflets were produced. PTE or Centro officers attended 40 consultation venues or meetings. In the case of line 2, in Birmingham 14,000 leaflets were distributed within 1 km of the proposed route--4,000 covering the city centre section and 10,000 for the area outside the city centre to the Solihull boundary ; 13 consultation venues were organised by Centro and council officers, and were attended by 1,400 members of the public ; an exhibition lasting three and a half weeks was arranged at Bromford neighbourhood office ; public meetings were organised and publicised by Centro and Birmingham city council, and 239 people attended ; and there were 26 meetings with businesses and business groups.In Solihull, 25,000 leaflets were distributed throughout northern Solihull ; two further leaflets--4,500 copies of one, and 14,000 of the other--were distributed to advise people of further consultation venues.
Mr. Rooker : I have been waiting for the hon. Gentleman to come to the end of his list, and I think he has now done so.
Mr. Bevan : I have not come to the end of it.
Mr. Rooker : In that case, I shall put my question when he has finished.
Mr. Bevan : I come now to line 3. In Walsall, 36,000 leaflets--three versions covering sections of the route--were distributed to households within 1 km of the proposed route ; and 11 consultation venues were organised and attended by Centro and council officers. In Wolverhampton, 12,000 leaflets were distributed to households within 1 km of the proposed line of route ; personal letters were sent to occupiers of 130 properties directly affected by the route ; three consultation venues were organised, with Centro and council officers in attendance, and these were attended by 200 people ; and an exhibition was held at New Cross hospital.
In Sandwell, 12,000 leaflets were distributed to households within 1 km of the proposed line of route ; three consultation venues were organised and attended by Centro and council officers, and these attracted 400 people.
In Dudley, personal letters, with Sandwell leaflets, were sent to the occupiers of 32 homes along Birmingham New road ; and 600 people visited the exhibition bus in Dudley market place.
Mr. Rooker : I am sorry for having interrupted the hon. Gentleman before he completed his list. That list of consultations in respect of the three routes is very impressive, although I have not taken it all in. In any case, my constituency is not affected. Despite this massive public relations operation, the real test is whether people were listened to. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many changes were made in the proposed route as a result of all these consultations?
Column 645
Mr. Bevan : As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is necessary that the routes be promulgated along with the private Bill. Thus, by the time the Bill is published, the route is almost fixed. However, by that time all those who have a legitimate interest in the route, and who have expressed that interest, will have had their views taken into consideration. Of course, account will have been taken of locus standi. In a case like this, anyone voicing an objection must say who he is, what his interest is, and how he is affected. That cannot be altered. I understand that, in the case of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), some changes were made in the original proposed route. It would appear that the requirements have changed from time to time. I think that certain minor modifications have been made.Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) : I had no intention of intervening in the hon. Gentleman's speech, which I have been following with great interest, but I assure him that no changes were made as a result of the leaflets or of meetings in my constituency. If he thinks that some changes were made, perhaps he will tell the House what they were.
Mr. Bevan : I understood that there had been minor changes from the centre of the spine area originally proposed by the city council to the periphery--changes that the hon. Gentleman wanted. Certainly the route has now been arranged along the boundary of Collector road.
Mr. Davis : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Next Section
| Home Page |