House of Commons Hansard Debates for 20 May 1991

Mr. John Garrett (Norwich, South) : I must confess that I have mixed feelings about next steps agencies, as I had a hand in their origin. Twenty -four years ago, a group of which I was a member reported to the Fulton committee that Departments should be divided into budget centres ; executive areas with measurable output, which we now call agencies ; and responsibility centres handling legislative policy and ministerial support work, which are now called core departments. As a result, Fulton produced a definitive text on agencies. Paragraph 150 of the Fulton report says that the achievement of accountable management

"depends upon identifying or establishing accountable units within government departments--units where output can be measured against costs or other criteria, and where individuals can be held personally responsible for their performance."

Of course, because of bitter Treasury opposition those ideas came to nothing.

The concept next surfaced in a Fabian tract written in 1973 by myself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), in which we proposed the widespread establishment of departmental agencies. This tract was called--believe it or not--"Administrative

Column 689

Reform : The Next Step". The present agencies go much further than we had in mind. We never believed that, on such an issue, the Treasury could be so effectively handbagged. Like Fulton, we saw departmental agencies as bodies that would develop better information and budgetary systems and would enable the development of a cadre of professional top managers in the civil service. The main aim of Fulton, in constructing accountable management, was to break the power of the mandarins--the Oxbridge public school classicists and historians who ran the civil service--and replace them with managers. Unfortunately, that aim has never been fulfilled, and top management in the civil service is as socially and educationally exclusive as ever.

The reason agencies have made such rapid headway is that they were seen as a vehicle for cutting civil service costs by giving agency chief executives a strong incentive, through performance pay, to reduce staff numbers and by ending service-wide agreements on pay and conditions. The idea was to locate agencies in low-pay areas, and then pay their staffs at the local going-rate.

The document that heralded agencies in 1988 was a slight and inexpert piece of work--16 pages of assertions, and no analysis. This is what it says about Parliament :

"Presssure from Parliament, the Public Accounts Committee and the media tends to concentrate on alleged impropriety or incompetence, and making political points, rather than on demanding evidence of steadily improving efficiency and effectiveness."

I thought at the time that that was a gratuitous and ignorant observation, given all the efforts that all of us make every day of our lives, in the House and on the Select and Standing Committees, to demand improved performance by Departments. We have certainly never been offered it, and we have never secured it except by relentless pressure. Yet, here we have this dismissive attitude to our work in Parliament.

The first wave of these partly independent non-governmental organisations-- "PINGOs"--is now three years old. Their role, responsibilities, objectives and targets are supposed to be specified in framework documents. The early ones were all in relatively non-controversial areas : quasi-commercial work, where a framework document is not difficult to draw up, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, the Meteorological Office, the royal parks, research institutions, vehicle licensing, and so on. The only one in the first wave which was in an area of social policy was the Resettlement Agency, existing to provide board and lodging for persons without a settled way of life. The framework document for that body should have been a rather subtle instrument, but it did not even mention the size of the problem with which it had to deal, or what it proposed to do for its clients. Its only target was to abolish itself.

Now, a number of agencies are involved in social policy, having joined the Resettlement Agency. The largest of these has to do with social security benefits. They raise much more significant matters of public policy and parliamentary accountability. Decisions affecting thousands of our constituents have been handed over to a subsidiary of the Department of Social Security. Now we have the Fraser report, which raises more questions than it answers. I should like to put to the Minister a number of direct questions arising from it. The first question concerns the treatment of staff. I have here three letters sent last month by the Office of the

Column 690

Minister for the Civil Service to the Council of Civil Service Unions. I shall leave the Minister sufficient time to reply to the questions that have been put to him, and I hope that he will answer this point. The effect of the letters from the officer to the council is to deregulate annual reporting, deregulate promotion procedures and deregulate redundancy procedures. In effect, they abandon long- established redundancy agreements. More civil servants are being made redundant than at any time since the 1950s. Is it the intention to abandon all staff agreements on conditions of service in agencies? Paragraph 2.8 of the Fraser report proposes to give chief executives freedom to manage staff and resources in all areas, with a few specified exceptions. What are the exceptions? Perhaps the Minister will answer that question.

Secondly, we come to the framework documents, which are clearly crucial to the management of agencies and to which several hon. Members referred. Paragraph 2.4 of the Fraser report says that there should be agency targets and that they should measure financial performance, efficiency--both of which mean cost cutting--and the quality of customer service. Why does it not mention effectiveness in reaching out to those who could benefit from the services? Is it not the job of the Social Security Benefits Agency to increase benefit take-up rates? Is it not the job of the Training Agency to reach those people who need training but are not getting it? Will those targets be set?

So far, the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee has had two entirely different answers from two different Ministers on that point. When the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, now the Chancellor, was asked whether it was legitimate for the new Social Security Benefits Agency to try to increase the take-up of benefits, he said :

"I would not see that as a feature."

When asked the same question, the right hon. Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce), then Minister for the Civil Service, said : "In principle yes' and they are perfectly entitled to set that as a target."

What is the truth?

Thirdly, the Fraser report refers to cuts in headquarters staff of some 25 per cent. It quotes reductions in industry, under a similar devolutionary approach, of some 50 per cent. Those cuts will come in personnel and finance divisions, which happen to be the two places where civil service management is weakest. The report even talks about redefining the size and role of the Treasury and the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service. I never thought that I would see a Government report on "downsizing" the Treasury.

What is the size of that group in the civil service which is to be reduced? In the 30 main departments, it can hardly involve fewer than 100,000 staff members, virtually all working in London and living in the capital and its suburbs. When will they go? Will they suffer from deregulated redundancy arrangements?

Fourthly, it is the aim of the Fraser report to devolve personnel work from the centre and from the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service to the individual agencies. The Office of the Minister for the Civil Service will be cut, as I assume that the Minister will seek to set an example by reducing headquarters staff. When personnel work has been devolved, what will happen to central equal opportunities initiatives? There are no members of ethnic minority groups in the civil service in grades 1, 2 or 3 and

Column 691

only five in grade 4. Women form 48 per cent. of civil service staff. They form 74 per cent. of the lowest clerical grade but 5 per cent. of grades 1 to 4. How will those problems be addressed when the civil service is a collection of 100 small businesses, with no power at the centre to impose equal opportunities guidelines?

Fifthly, why is the civil service still regulated by Order in Council--the royal prerogative? Surely it is obvious that we need a civil service Act to govern the employment and conditions of civil servants. The royal prerogative was used to deny civil servants trade union rights at GCHQ. A civil service Act should define the duties of civil servants to serve the Crown rather than the Government of the day. It should also define the rights of civil servants to belong to trade unions and the duties of an accounting officer. At present, the accounting officer memorandum, which lays down the responsibilities of permanent heads of department, has no legal standing. The only statutes that apply to an accounting officer are those under the National Audit Act 1983.

Will the terms and conditions of service of civil servants be legislated for, or will they continue to be governed by royal proclamation? Will the civil service continue to be an entity? If it ends up as 100 agencies and 20 or 30 core departments, there will have to be an active and professional department for the civil service at the centre. Surely there is no question but that the arts and the civil service should be combined in the portfolio of one Minister. That shows what the Government think of the arts and the civil service. It is a ridiculous combination.

Which of the agencies will be privatised? I happen to have two in my constituency--Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency. Having joined the civil service, my constituents should like to know how many of them will end up working for private companies. The two agencies which I mentioned are sufficiently commercial to be chosen for privatisation. If there were a list of forthcoming privatisations, as I am sure that there is, right at the top would be HMSO- -so long as the Government could find a way to subsidise parliamentary documents--and the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency.

The Government boast of efficiency but, when one studies the background to their recent policies, one sees extraordinary inefficiency and huge cost of administration in relation to returns. The poll tax, the social fund, student grants and chasing errant fathers for maintenance are examples of such policies. There has never been legislation with such a low benefit-to- cost ratio. Civil service policy is not the only example of retrogression. Recently, there has been a growth in quangos. I remember when the Government were a great hunter of quangos but nowadays, instead of talking quangos, we have spending ones carrying out training, regulating gas, water and electricity and controlling pollution. Few of those expensive quangos are accountable to Parliament. Will the Minister explain their accountability?

Agencies are neutral. They can be used by a Labour Government for advancing the conditions of the people and for providing better services to the customer.

Alternatively, they can be used to cut costs--as these agencies will be used. They may be like HMSO or the Charities Commission. Under the Government, they will

Column 692

drive down the living standards of their workers and will not actively seek to improve their services. If anything, they make worse the real problem of the civil service--its divisions on grounds of social class. It is still overwhelmingly dominated by mandarins. The cadre of the permanent sector is now more socially exclusive than it was in 1900. In last year's fast-stream entry, 55 per cent. of entrants had Oxbridge arts degrees and one came from a polytechnic. The Government have made no impact on that problem.

The tradition of the gentleman amateur in top management in British Government has done our country incalculable harm. It is a tradition that is indifferent to quantitative analysis, management and junior staff. That is the real problem in the civil service, and the Government have done nothing to broaden the formation of senior civil servants. Agencies are irrelevant to that problem and, although they could be used to improve quality, the Government will use them to cut costs. Under a Labour Government, they would be used to improve the quality of service, particularly in social policy, to outreach the service to potential customers, who now receive no service at all. 6.47 pm

Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay) : The question that the Opposition must answer on their ambiguous approach to this issue is whether they believe in putting first the interests of staff or those of the consumer. Next steps seeks to attain a complete change in culture within the civil service. Every hon. Member knows that dealing with the civil service--whether it is a matter of trying to get a passport in time or a replacement driving licence--is like dealing with a brick wall. We are trying to achieve a dramatic change.

A welcome change has been made in the driver vehicle licensing centre, and the results of Her Majesty's Stationery Office are gradually being improved. The Meteorological Office also shows every sign of improvement, and Ordnance Survey and Companies House have taken great initiatives.

The Public Record Office is a prime candidate for privatisation. It is a marvellous national asset that should be exploited. I find it offensive when people come to me, having studied documents in the Public Record Office, and ask why documents from the first world war are still classified "top secret" and not available. There should be an immediate change to the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967 to allow the privatisation of the Public Record Office. We should be able to give the public far better service. They should be allowed to see all documents, unless there is a genuine national security consideration or somebody's life could be put at risk by premature disclosure. The Public Record Office is a national asset. A good precedent for privatisation was when the BBC decided that it was also a national asset, with tremendous software programming. At one stage, only three people were working in the New York office of BBC Enterprises. It is now a major organisation, working to the great benefit of the BBC. The Public Record Office is sitting on a veritable goldmine, yet it supplies absolutely free, although not entirely good, service, not just to the British public but to American academics and researchers from overseas. I should like to see the genuine exploitation of all the material. The Government and civil service should ensure

Column 693

that they fully respect the 30-year rule. All material should go from Government Departments to the Public Record Office without being shredded. After 30 years, all that material should become completely available to readers of the Public Record Office. That would mean charging consumers and exploiting a priceless asset and would end the abuse and secrecy surrounding the Public Record Office.

People do not realise that, not only are several Government Departments excluded from the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967, which means that Government Departments do not have to supply documents to the PRO ; material is sent to the PRO after it has been what is euphemistically known as "weeded" by the civil service, and that material also remains closed. There are vast corridors of documents in the PRO that are entirely secret. At present, the PRO conspires with the Lord Chancellor's Office to ensure that that material is never seen by the public. That is a deplorable conspiracy. I should like to see something along the lines of a Freedom of Information Act or a change in the Public Records Acts to enable people-- the taxpayers--to be able to see that material. There is a great principle in the United States : if material has been paid for by the taxpayer, he is entitled to see it. Unfortunately, on this side of the Atlantic, we subscribe to the culture whereby material is not made available to the taxpayer because, if it were, it would mean that, heaven forbid, the civil service would be held accountable for the views and advice it gives to Ministers. That is the key to the culture of secrecy in this country, which a simple change to the Public Record Office or an aggressive approach to next steps could change. The retention of documents in the PRO is absurd.

This week has seen the anniversary of the arrival in this country of Rudolf Hess. How odd it is that, if one wants to read the true account of what happened to Rudolf Hess, one has to go to the national archives in America and pay 15 cents a sheet or to Dzerzhinski square in Moscow and ask the KGB for its version of the documents. They are available in both those places, but the British version of the documents is entirely secret.

If we were to take an aggressive approach to the privatisation of the Public Record Office and impose a 50-year rule, which would satisfy people on the national security grounds of retaining particularly sensitive documents, we could now be reading the documents prepared by the security service in 1940 relating to alleged fifth columnists, pro-Nazis and people who were considered sympathetic to the Nazis in 1940 and a possible danger to the Government of this country.

The PRO is a priceless asset which should be exploited in exactly the same way as the BBC has exploited BBC Enterprises. The BBC has made marvellous programmes over many years. That software has become available and is a source of tremendous financial advantage to the BBC. We should like to see exactly the same thing happen to the PRO. The driver and vehicle licensing centre has just begun on that path by selling some number plates. The Ordnance Survey could do much the same thing and Companies House could follow suit by supplying fast information to consumers.

At the bottom of next steps, and what we are asking for, is not just a change of service, but a change of the culture of secrecy which has so shackled this country and worked to the disadvantage of taxpayers. I should like to see a

Column 694

change, not necessarily for the benefit of the staff of such organisations--many people believe that some of those organisations existed for the benefit of their staff, notably British Rail. We should take an aggressive approach to the next steps agencies which would work to the advantage of the taxpayer.

6.54 pm

Mr. Renton : This has been a useful debate, and I am glad that we have been able to arrange it, as the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee suggested. I particularly wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) for his wise speech, in which he drew on his extremely extensive knowledge of the subject. I am conscious that when he was in the office that I now hold, he oversaw the inception of the next steps policy from its beginnings. Now, as a member of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, he will be able to see how that policy develops in practice. I am sure that the Select Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), will greatly benefit from the continuing interest and experience of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham in this subject.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham asked about transferring staff between agencies and policy areas. I thoroughly agree that such transfers are extremely important, and I hope that staff interchange will continue, both for staff development and for management needs. I hope that freedom in pay and personnel regimes, which will be increasingly flexible, will not be allowed to obstruct the transferability of which my right hon. Friend spoke.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) for his speech. I wholly agree that a major part of the political debate of the 1990s will concentrate on better public service for the ordinary, average citizen of the United Kingdom and, I hope, a continuing interesting career structure with flexibility of pay for all those working in the public service. That fits in with the citizens' charter, on which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made a number of interesting comments and on which a White Paper will come before the House before the summer recess.

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) was able to make a speech. I listened with interest to his not wholly unexpected remarks about the Public Record Office. I wholly agree with him about the need for better service to be the theme throughout the next steps agencies.

I thought that the comments of the hon. Members for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) were disappointing--

Mr. Radice : Come on.

Mr. Renton : It is no good the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) saying, "Come on," because in his saner moods--when he spoke tonight, he was in a good sane mood--he will realise precisely why I say that. The hon. Members for Wrexham and for Norwich, South reminded me of the old saying that none rowed fast, but none so fast as stroke. There is support for the agencies in principle and in detail from the Government and Opposition Back Benchers, as was shown by the hon. Member for Durham, North. There is none--or there is havering--from the hon. Members for Wrexham and for

Column 695

Norwich, South, which is disappointing. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) left the Chamber before being able to be reminded how much he is being let down by the two Opposition spokesmen.

The hon. Member for Norwich, South, despite his long-term interest in the subject, merely brought out the old sayings about mandarins and Oxbridge recruitment to the civil service. Why did he not give a single, constructive and intelligent comment about where the next steps initiative was going?

Mr. Radice : The Minister was not listening.

Mr. Renton : I was listening carefully, and I was extremely disappointed. I realise that the hon. Member for Wrexham does not know a great deal about the subject. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham said, the hon. Member for Wrexham has often shown confusion on the subject. But I expected more from the hon. Member for Norwich, South, who has served on the Select Committee for a long time. He merely trotted out all the old, trite phrases about next steps.

Dr. Marek : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Renton : I shall not give way ; I have only one minute left and I want to answer some of the points made

Dr. Marek rose--

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Order.

Dr. Marek rose--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order.

Column 696

Mr. Renton : I will not give way, because I want to answer some of the questions--

Dr. Marek rose--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please resume his seat?

Dr. Marek rose--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. The Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Renton : I wanted to answer some of the questions put by the hon. Member for Norwich, South as I was intending--

Dr. Marek rose--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. This is extremely bad behaviour.

Dr. Marek : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker : There can be no point of order. The Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way.

Dr. Marek : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for Ministers not to give way when they make personal attacks on hon. Members?

Madam Deputy Speaker : The Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way.

Mr. Renton : We will carry the process forward with vigour, and I am sure that it will be supported by the civil service and by the whole country.

Mr. Nicholas Baker (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury) : I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Column 697

London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

7 pm

Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill is promoted by London Underground Ltd. It was deposited in Parliament in November 1989. It was given a Second Reading in another place on 8 March 1990 and committed to an Opposed Private Bill Committee which first sat on 5 June 1990. Some 36 petitions were deposited against the Bill in the other place. The Committee adjourned its proceedings on 11 June to enable the promoters to make certain changes to the Bill as a result of a petition from the trustees of the Borough market. The Committee reconvened on 3 December and concluded on 18 December 1990. I pay tribute to my former colleague on the Greater London council, Baroness Gardner of Parkes, who piloted the Bill through the other place.

The Bill stemmed from the recommendations contained in the Fennell report into the fire at King's Cross. The report contained 157 recommendations. Recommendation No. 62 said :

"London Underground shall undertake an investigation of the problems of passenger flow and congestion in stations and take remedial action".

The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to that recommendation at three busy stations : London Bridge, Holborn and Tottenham Court Road. The measures are concerned with safety and the relief of passenger congestion, and aim to provide additional capacity for future growth at each station. Both elements are of great importance to Londoners.

Anyone who travels on the underground will have seen, as I have, the problems of congestion. The use of the underground increased rapidly during the 1980s. In 1981, there were 541 million journeys. In 1989 there were about 850 million--an increase of 57 per cent. Central London stations, already heavily used, became even busier. Usage increased by 38 per cent. during peak periods and by 53 per cent. over the day as a whole.

The three stations were constructed at a time of far lighter passenger flow and their features incorporate thinking on station design which is no longer acceptable, such as entrances to the ends of long, dead-end platforms--that is long platforms with the entrance and exit at one end-- and limited space to deal with congestion and bottlenecks at the head and foot of escalators and stairways. The three stations have only one route to the street, although two independent means of escape other than by train are now required for new stations. The design of the stations coupled with the increased number of passengers mean that congestion is a regular occurrence. For London Underground, congestion and safety problems go together. Congestion could, for example, lead to someone falling off the platform or could result in panic in an emergency. That is why the long title of the Bill is

"An Act for safety purposes and the relief of passenger congestion".

In line with the Fennell recommendations, London Underground is carrying out a review of 30 stations and is studying the problems of safety and congestion. The three

Column 698

stations were given high priority for attention. At London Bridge, the platforms and access points to them were built in 1900. Over the past 20 years, use of the station has increased by 92 per cent. Under the Bill, the main work will be the construction of a new tunnel and line of railway which will enable the present southbound platform to be turned into a circulating area. As well as the existing station entrance, there will be a new ticket hall in Borough High street with escalator connections.

At Holborn, the present ticket hall was built in 1906 to serve the Piccadilly line. It was altered in 1933 when the Central line platforms were added. The station was used by about 35 million people in 1990, the figure having risen by about 50 per cent. since 1981. The ticket hall is small and is frequently closed for short periods on weekdays to avoid overcrowding. London Underground proposes to build an additional ticket hall beneath the junction of Southampton row and Theobalds road, and to build associated shafts and subways to the platforms below, which will provide an additional means of getting into and out of the station.

Tottenham Court Road has what everyone would agree is a remarkably small ticket hall, especially with the new ticketing machinery and with the safety measure of taking the machines back from the end of the escalator. The present ticket hall dates from 1929, and serves the Central and Northern lines. The hall is small, but it has to serve 35 million passengers annually. It is the sixth busiest station on the system and its use has grown by 51 per cent. between 1981 and 1989, leading to periods of closure as at Holborn. The main work at Tottenham Court Road station will be a new ticket hall at the corner of Oxford street and Tottenham Court road, with escalators to serve the Northern and Central lines and associated passageways to the platforms. That will improve passenger distribution and will give better access to Oxford street.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead and Highgate) : My hon. Friend refers to escalators. Although I appreciate that he may need to get some information, can he tell us whether the escalators will be built to a standard pattern so that if there is a problem about repair a new escalator can be put in straight away? Or, as with so many London escalators, will they be purpose-built for each station? There is great difficulty in getting replacements made because each escalator is a one-off job.

Mr. Hughes : I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has a background knowledge of these matters. When I was a member of the London Transport committee of the Greater London council, we specifically discussed escalators for the reasons that my hon. Friend has described. From my knowledge of that time, I realise that it is a difficult problem because of the unique way in which escalators have to be constructed. They often have to be carried in piece by piece through the ticket hall and then assembled. I note my hon. Friend's point and I will seek guidance. I may seek leave of the House to try to answer his question in due course.

The Bill is extremely important to London. Other hon. Members may want to raise important constituency matters. For my constituents and for those of other London Members, it is vital that the Bill is given a Second Reading without delay. I recommend the Bill to the House.

Column 699

7.8 pm

Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury) : I emphasise at the outset that I have no quarrel with the basic purpose of the Bill. The proposed works are entirely in line with the approach that was recommended for London Underground by the Fennell report following the tragedy of the fire at King's Cross. The improvements and the works leading to them which are set out in the Bill are worthwhile objectives.

I shall be brief in expressing my concern, which rests solely with clause 31, which effectively overrides the normal provisions of listed building protection for such buildings contained within the purview of any works relating to the Bill.

You will doubtless recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that when the King's Cross Railways Bill, which was jointly promoted by British Rail and London Underground, first came before us, it contained a similar provision. It was a rather sweeping provision, removing any listed building consent requirements for any of the buildings within the purview of the Bill. The Department of the Environment, even at that first stage of the Bill, expressed its reservations about that clause. English Heritage attempted to petition against the Bill but was refused locus standi to do so. However, the Committee that considered the King's Cross Railways Bill quite rightly drew attention to that clause and demanded that British Rail and London Underground remove it.

That was an entirely appropriate response to an attempt, by means of a private Bill, to overturn the impact of primary legislation. Such an attempt should not be made through the private Bill procedure. The Department of the Environment, English Heritage and the Committee were entirely right to reach that judgment. Sadly, neither British Rail nor London Underground seem to have learnt the lesson from that experience. We already have tabled, although not yet debated, the London Underground (King's Cross) Bill which contains a similar provision. The London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill contains entirely worthy measures, but it also contains a clause that would override listed building provisions. I do not want to hold up the works in the Bill, but I insist that London Underground goes through the proper procedures in relation to gaining listed building consent and seeking to do works in conservation areas, rather than attempt to overturn them by means of a clause in a private Bill. I hope that we may be able to get a commitment from the promoters of the Bill on the point about listed building consent. Failing that, I hope that the Committee that may be established to consider the Bill will treat the clause in exactly the same way as another Committee treated clause 19 of the King's Cross Railways Bill.

It is an important constitutional point that private Bills should not override the provisions of primary legislation. We have set in place listed building protection to protect our heritage. It is not the place of the private Bill procedure lightly to overturn that protection. I fear that clause 31 of this Bill is doing precisely that.

7.12 pm

Sir John Wheeler (Westminster, North) : I am particularly glad to follow the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), because I, too, wish to refer to the great concern about clause 31 in the city of Westminster. I completely agree with what the hon.

Column 700

Gentleman said about the proposal and the principles that the Bill would set aside. I, too, have considered the plea from English Heritage that there should be greater consideration of those matters, and I sympathise with its point of view.

I particularly wish to address the House on behalf of Westminster city council and the residents of the city who, while strongly welcoming the proposal to develop the new underground facilities which my constituents and the people who live and work in the city will commonly enjoy, are concerned about setting aside the provisions of primary legislation to further the speedy passage of a private Bill.

As a general principle, Westminster city council opposes the powers that are sought by London Transport in the Bill to demolish listed buildings and unlisted buildings in conservation areas without recourse to normal planning procedures. The city council believes that consent to demolish a listed building or unlisted building in a conservation area should be granted only when a satisfactory design for the replacement building is approved and when proper guarantees about the construction of the replacement building are provided. That, of course, is normally a condition of consent in the first instance. As a planning authority, the city council, which has responsibility for granting such consents, requires both those conditions to be met to ensure not only that a replacement building is of a satisfactory design but that no unsightly vacant sites are left following demolition. Westminster city council opposes the provisions of clause 31 because no guarantees on those important issues have been provided.

I wish that those who promote this legislation would recognise that wider concerns within the community, and especially in the centre of London, must be addressed. Such concerns force the House to make a difficult decision. Are we to divide and oppose the Bill or can we expect a reasonable approach from the sponsor of the Bill so that the concerns of English Heritage, my council and the city of Westminster can be met? I hope that I shall receive some encouraging comments. Westminster city council has noted the findings of the Opposed Private Bill Committee which recently reported on a similar issue on the Jubilee line Bill with respect to the demolition of Nos. 1 and 2 Bridge street. The Opposed Private Bill Committee amended the Jubilee line Bill to require a resolution of the House to be passed, approving the design of the replacement of Nos. 1 and 2 Bridge street before the existing building can be demolished. The city council welcomes the committee's recommendation that the design of replacement buildings is important, but is concerned that it still provides no certainty that the replacement building will be built. My council continues to oppose the Bill on that basis. Residents of the city and the 500,000 or so people who work in the city would want these important underground facilities to be developed, but I wish that there was greater co-operation between those who promote private legislation and the statutory authorities that are responsible for planning matters. It is recognised that there is widespread public concern about our architectural heritage and the environment, and those matters must also be taken into account.

I very much hope that the House will listen and that those with responsibility for this matter will respond helpfully.

Next Section

Home Page