House of Commons Hansard Debates for 2 Dec 1991

Column 43

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish) : Is the Minister happy that the promoters will have to provide environmental statements ? Is that better than requiring the promoters to commission an environmental statement from a neutral body ? One danger is that an organisation that is asked to produce an environmental statement in support of a scheme may look at matters differently from an organisation that is asked to produce an environmental statement from a neutral point of view.

Mr. McLoughlin : That is a problem, but I think that it would be addressed by a public inquiry. An environmental statement which was made in the initial stages could certainly be questioned by a public inquiry and by anyone who wished to make representations to it.

Mr. Bennett : As Ministers have decided that the House should approve a measure first, surely the House should have that independent information before making its decision. I have coresponded with the Minister about the possibility of having two stages in Parliament, one before and one after an inquiry. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's arguments about not having a second stage, although no doubt we shall come to that matter in Committee. If Parliament is to give its approval about a scheme before a public inquiry is held, it is important that it has available to it impartial environmental information before making any decision in principle.

Mr. McLoughlin : I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am not dealing with a scheme's national significance, when Parliament would be asked to give a broad view : I am dealing with strict criteria and local public inquiries, rather than a later stage. The hon. Gentleman's point about independent environmental statements can best be discussed in Committee, when we can listen to the arguments in full, but it is certainly worth thinking about.

I hope that, in dealing with clause 9, I shall cover some of the points made by the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). The clause is important, even though I do not expect its provisions to be exercised often. The Joint Committee noted that there were occasionally schemes of such importance that they touched on national policy, and a variety of devices had been used to bring them before Parliament. In the debates on the Joint Committee report, there were those in both Houses who wanted such a mechanism.

In the consultation document, we suggested that that might be done by affirmative resolution after a public inquiry, but a number of objections were put to us. Perhaps the most important is that, if Parliament is going to say no to such an important scheme, it should do so early in its progress rather than waste a lot of time and money and cause invonvenience to those who would be affected by the scheme. The Council on Tribunals was concerned that the inquiry system could be brought into disrepute if, after a long and thorough inquiry, the whole process were overturned by perhaps a single vote in Parliament. The Royal Town Planning Institute recommended that local decisions should always be taken in a strategic framework and, although I would not go quite that far, what we are proposing is consistent with its suggestion.

There is, of course, another point of view. There are those who say that no decision in principle should be made until all the details of a scheme are thoroughly

Column 44

investigated. I certainly agree that no final decision should be made until that has been done, but these schemes are so huge that it is simply not practical to work them and all the other options up in fine detail before making a decision in principle. No decision in principle often means no decision at all. If this country is to prosper, it must be able to make difficult decisions of this kind. In any such case, the draft order and supporting documents, including the environmental statement, will be available to Parliament at least two months before any debate--that point, which was made by the hon. Member for Bradford, South, could certainly be considered in Committee. Both Houses would then be invited to pass a resolution which endorsed the need for the project and, broadly, the chosen option, but all the questions about detailed alignments, mitigating environmental effects and so on would be left to a public inquiry.

The Secretary of State would be prevented from making an order which was inconsistent with Parliament's resolution, but he would not be compelled to make the order. Those proposals should play to the strengths of Parliament, in making broad judgments, and the local inquiry, which is better suited to sorting out local details. Clauses 10 and 11 deal with the handling of objections and inquiries. They provide for a full local inquiry and fewer formal hearings or written representations. A relevant local authority or the owner of land proposed to be taken by the order may insist on an inquiry or a hearing ; otherwise, the method of assessing objections is left to the Secretary of State. The inquiry rules will be made under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971. Once the objections have been considered, the Secretary of State will make his decision on the order under clause 13 and publicise his decision under clause 14. There will be no further parliamentary involvement unless National Trust or common land is to be taken, in which case special parliamentary procedures could apply.

One of the advantages of a private Bill is that all the consents for a scheme which would otherwise be required under different legislation can be obtained in one go. Clauses 15 to 20 seek to achieve that for orders.

Clause 23 makes provision for the handling in the courts of any proceedings about orders and is modelled on very similar provisions in the Highways Act 1980 and the Harbours Act 1964.

When we published the consultation document, we thought that there might be schemes so local in impact that they should be dealt with by local authorities. On examining the matter further, we have found them to be too few to warrant the legislative apparatus, including possible appeals, which would be required. Clause 24 gives power to the Secretary of State to transfer certain classes of case to inspectors on the model of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 if experience shows that to be the best way of dealing with them. The system of orders which I have been discussing will not apply in Scotland. The existing Scottish system, governed by the Private Legislation Procedures (Scotland) Act 1936, is judged generally to work well. The greater part of the Scottish private legislation procedure is administered locally, is relatively informal and takes up very little parliamentary time. One effect is that cross-border schemes will continue to require private legislation. That requires an amendment to the 1936 Act which is contained in clause 25. However, such cases will be rare.

Column 45

I come now to the safety provisions and, first, to the offences about drink and drugs in clauses 27 to 41. These provisions back up operators' strict policy on alcohol and drug abuse. It is a rule on BR that no one should report for duty under the influence of, nor take while on duty, alcohol or any other substance which might impair their safety, efficiency or vigilance. Similar provisions apply to London Underground staff. BR's code of practice views contraventions of that rule very seriously and regards dismissal as the normal result. BR has a policy of pre-employment testing for drugs of recruits to safety posts. It also has voluntary in-service and post-incident testing.

Although the operators' disciplinary codes are useful, experience has shown that statutory provision is necessary. Clauses 27 to 41 provide comprehensive powers. The House will no doubt be relieved to know that, as most of those clauses are based on road traffic legislation, I do not propose to describe them in detail. For nearly 150 years, it has been an offence to work on a railway while drunk. After a railway accident at Morpeth in 1984, the Government undertook to modernise the drink offence and extend it to drugs in the light of the inspector's subsequent report. Since then, we have had the Cannon street case. After the inquest, the coroner wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State about the absence of police testing powers. I have put a copy of his letter in the Library. We have concluded that the law must be brought up to date. Most people whom we consulted this autumn agreed with us and with what we propose.

Clauses 28 and 29 are the key ones. They create criminal offences of being unfit through drink or drugs or being "over the limit" of alcohol in the body while working on a railway, and of operating a railway where such offences have been committed without doing all that is reasonable to prevent them. We have specified the types of work in respect of which offences might be committed. They are all jobs where it is possible to affect directly the safety of the travelling public.

The operator has an important role to play in preventing incidents of this sort. Operators must show that they have taken all reasonable precautions to prevent drinking and drug taking if they are to avoid prosecution. As the House will see, at clause 56, it will be possible to prosecute individual directors as well as companies for safety offences under this Bill. The provisions also apply to tramways and other forms of guided transport.

We have decided that the alcohol limits in this Bill should be the same as for road traffic offences. It would be hard to justify a difference, say, for a tram driver or a bus driver on the same road. The best rule is for no one to work on the railway when under the influence. That is reflected in the operators' rule book. The limits in the Bill do not imply that drinking up to these limits is a safe practice. The offence of exceeding the prescribed alcohol limit is a second line of defence to operators' strict standards, and the prescribed alcohol limit is that which justifies a criminal--rather than disciplinary--offence. We will keep the prescribed limits under review, and clause 39 enables them to be amended by regulations. This is not the place to discuss whether the road traffic alcohol limits are right. The British Medical Association has pressed for them to be lower, but I must say to the House that lower limits, whether on roads or railways, should be soundly based. If we are to criminalise an action, we must be sure that an act has been committed which

Column 46

justifies the term "criminal". The first line of defence must be the working rules operated by British Rail and other railway undertakers, which is a matter of employment practice. The limits in the Bill do not imply that drinking and drug-taking of any kind by railwaymen is a safe practice.

The remainder of the safety clauses are in the Bill principally because, without them, some private legislation would still be required. Clauses 42 to 44 give the railway inspectorate powers to carry out supervision of new work and to receive accident reports. We are taking this opportunity to implement the recommendations of the Fennell and Hidden reports on the King's Cross and Clapham Junction accidents which also pointed out that the legislation, which dates from 1871 and 1933, is inadequate to deal with modern conditions. Consequently, clause 42 gives the Secretary of State a wide power to make regulations about the approval of new works and equipment to be used on railways, tramways, trolley vehicle systems and other systems of guided transport. Clause 43 extends the powers of inspectors to all those forms of transport. Clause 44 allows for the reporting not only of accidents but of those incidents which could easily have led to them, such as signals failing on anything but red.

The provisions at clause 46 and 47 are principally aimed at heritage railways and tramways which have blossomed all over the country. They are normally authorised by light railway orders made under the Light Railways Act 1896. They will now come within these provisions except in Scotland where the Scottish private legislation procedure will apply, but it is thought wise to take powers limiting speeds and loads and to ensure that these railways are properly insured against accidents involving third parties.

There has been some controversy about clause 48 and schedule 2, which amend the Highways Act 1980 so that footpaths and bridleways which cross railways can be stopped up or diverted on safety grounds. That can be done only by a private Bill at present, the most inappropriate means imaginable for something which is essentially local. In these provisions, we have tried to strike a balance between safety and convenience and we have provided for a local inquiry to examine all the issues.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : We are all worried about safety--there have been some horrific accidents--but does the Minister accept that, if the balance is to be right, the Bill should contain a mechanism under which British Rail, when speeding up train times on the line, should be required to provide either an underpass or a bridge?

Mr. McLoughlin : That might be one of the matters best addressed by the local inquiry. A private Bill is not the best method for such matters because of the possible delay involved. We could consider the issue in Committee, but it will need to be considered by the local inquiry because it is essentially a local matter rather than one that needs to come before the House.

The remainder of the clauses deal with safety at level crossings, especially private ones.

If Parliament passes the Bill, we would hope to have the new orders system running as soon as possible. As the House will understand, the Bill provides for a lot of secondary legislation--for orders and the safety provisions--which must be in place before the new system can work properly. It would be wrong of me to promise that we shall

Column 47

have it all ready by a particular date. There may be amendments which change the timetable. It is important that we get the secondary legislation right so that the new system has a good start. In this necessarily brief tour of the Bill's provisions, I hope that I have said enough to describe broadly what we are trying to achieve.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : Can the Minister make it clear to outside interests when he expects the House to stop accepting works Bills? That would be helpful and I should have thought that it would be very foolish for anyone outside--presuming that that legislation is passed--to expect to introduce a works Bill in the next Session of Parliament.

Mr. McLoughlin : I do not think that I can go further than I have already. The Standing Orders of the House do not allow issues to be introduced in private Bills if they could be introduced by any other means. When dealing with secondary legislation, we shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said. Clearly, the time scale will depend to some extent on when the Bill finally seeks the approval of both Houses.

I do not think that the Bill's provisions are controversial, but they are necessary. The legislation arises from the recommendations of the Joint Committee and I have already paid tribute to the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest chaired the Committee and made the recommendations. I am glad that we have had this opportunity to introduce legislation which, I hope, goes some way to meeting the Committee's recommendations. The Committee comprised members of all parties and made its recommendations almost unanimously. I sense that there is cross-party support and I hope that today's debate bodes well.

I commend the Bill to the House and trust that it will have a swift passage through both Houses.

4.57 pm

Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East) : I believe that the Bill commands a degree of cross-party support and I shall attempt to point out the issues on which we agree as well as the one or two which might cause some difficulty at a later stage.

Part I of the Bill will replace the current parliamentary procedures for Bills involving new railway works or harbours with orders granted by the Secretary of State and subject to public inquiry. Those changes should avoid the uncertainties of the private Bill procedure and will on occasion, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I are aware, reduce the parliamentary time spent on such matters. The regulatory provisions in part II will make an important contribution to ensuring the safety of passengers on rail and other transport systems. As for part I, I am grateful to the

Under-Secretary of State for outlining the principle of the changes inherent in this section and, basically, we welcome them. The existing private Bill procedures impose time-consuming and unpredictable obstacles in the passage of legislation and hon. Members from both parties have occasionally used the existing procedures to delay important railway schemes as a result, sometimes, of factors not wholly related to the scheme or to the Bill in question.

Column 48

I will outline some of the reasons behind our welcome for the general thrust of the Bill. We believe that the public inquiry procedure has a number of advantages over the current parliamentary rules, especially for the general public. Such inquiries are better able to consider technical details than some parliamentary Committees are. Such inquiries can be held locally rather than in London and can consider alternatives broader than merely the provisions of a single Bill. The cost of attending a parliamentary Committee hearing would be eliminated for members of the public. I hope--I seek clarification from the Minister--that the new procedures would require environmental impact assessments to be considered where appropriate. I have no wish to linger too long on the Government's griefs over their present difficulties with the European Commission, but I hope that we shall receive some reassurance from the Minister that in future such assessments will be considered.

The Bill does not concern only conventional railway schemes. A number of light rail initiatives have been taken by local authorities and some of them have already become bogged down in our somewhat elaborate procedures. Some have been bogged down as a result of deliberate delay and obfuscation at the Department of Transport. The aims of part I will be achieved in the way in which the Minister would like them to be achieved only if certain issues are properly clarified.

Clear timetables must be set for inquiry hearings and for the announcement of a decision if we are to ensure that the new procedures work more effectively than the existing procedures. I suggest that a time limit be written into the Bill in Committee : a period of six weeks for the appointment of the inspector and a similar period for the inspector to report after the conclusion of an inquiry. The Minister looks a little doubtful. I have no doubt that his advisers will tell him, "That is very difficult, Minister." I can see some of their lips moving now on those lines.

I hope that Conservative Members who take an interest in such matters will agree that with schemes which might be embarrassing for any Government or might lead to difficulties in any area for a prominent member of any Government, the temptation without a laid down time limit would be to prevaricate, especially if an embarrassing political event, such as a general election, was due. I know that the Minister will want to do what he can to reassure people outside that such unworldly considerations will not unduly delay schemes to be considered under the Bill.

Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight) : I am pleased to hear what the hon. Gentleman has said. Will he confirm to the House for the record that, if a Labour Government faced an inquiry concerning one of the privatised industries--privatised industries, such as Associated British Ports, hitherto required private legislation--he would believe that a timetable should be instituted by a Labour Secretary of State who might be tempted to use the public inquiry procedure as a way to delay implementation of the reforms? That might hold up the trading position of that privatised industry.

Mr. Snape : I assure the hon. Gentleman that any transport industry affected by the Bill would be treated by an incoming Labour Government in exactly the way that I urge the Minister to treat such an industry. The hon. Gentleman may be artful in introducing such irrelevancies-- [Interruption.] Once again the Whip, the hon. Member

Column 49

for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) cannot contain himself on the Government Front Bench. He obviously has not read the legislation. Of course, it is not his job to do so--his job is to get the Bill on the statute book regardless of what it contains.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who takes an interest in these matters even if his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam does not, will be aware that the Bill is specific about the industries that it covers. It covers transport matters, most of which are railway matters. I assure the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that I urge its provisions, with the safeguards that I propose, not merely on a Conservative Government, but on a future Labour Government whom I expect to abide by them as well.

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Snape : I fear that the hon. Gentleman will not be able to resist some political barb about these matters. If he does make such a barb, I may pursue him down that road, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the early cross-party consensus may be prejudiced. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment. If, after reflection, he wants to intervene, I shall be delighted to give way.

The Secretary of State must adopt standard criteria for deciding which schemes come within the remit of clause 9--"schemes of national significance". Before the hon. Member for Isle of Wight intervenes, I must tell him that such decisions should not be left simply to the discretion of a Secretary of State, even a Secretary of State as wise and as far-seeing as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).

Mr. Moate : I shall be as constructive and as cross-party as the hon. Gentleman always is to me. We all welcome timetables which require Secretaries of State to set up planning inquiries rapidly, although there are practical difficulties. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are trying to make the normal planning procedures apply to railway works? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would urge any future Government to set up a public inquiry within a certain time? Is he saying that the Labour party commits itself to do the same on all planning matters? The arguments that apply to roads, highways and housing are the same as those that apply to railway works. If the hon. Gentleman is not saying that, why not?

Mr. Snape : The short answer is that it is vital that a time limit is laid down for minor schemes. It would be impossible and undesirable to put time limits on the length of an inquiry into a major scheme. However, a future Labour Government would approve such a time limit for appointing inspectors and for reporting after the conclusion of an inquiry. I stress that that does not affect the length of time of the inquiry because, for obvious reasons, some inquiries will be more detailed and technical than others. However, the time limits on either side which I have proposed are eminently reasonable and I look forward to urging them on the ever- receptive ears of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. Will the Minister assure us that if a scheme does not come within the remit of clause 9, the rules for making objections under clause 10 will not unreasonably limit those objections? It would be highly unsatisfactory if

Column 50

inquiries were limited to very local and detailed issues concerning, for example, the precise alignment of a route and if they could not consider wider issues that might affect people locally.

There should be a clear separation between the order-making procedure and the role of the Secretary of State in grant-aiding, for example, light rail schemes. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that.

The Bill does not provide for local order-making power for minor schemes, although such a provision was included in the original consultation paper. Would it not be more sensible if in relation, for example, to small changes to previously aproved schemes, such local power was reinstated? Under the Bill, it does not seem logical that minor proposals would also go back to the Secretary of State and would be subject to the full-blown order-making procedures. For railway proposals that include the closure of an existing line or station, it appears that the new procedure wil replace the closure consideration held by the local transport users consultative committees. Will the Minister give us an assurance that all objections will be heard at the public inquiry, and that both the relevant TUCC and any individual users affected will be given the status of statutory objectors under clause 2?

I will ask the Minister to comment on other provisions in part I in due course, especially if the Government are really committed to helping local authorities plan and implement light rail and other desperately needed public transport initiatives. Will the Government give a commitment during the passage of the Bill to review investment appraisal techniques and rules to ensure that differences in such techniques for road and rail schemes cease to result in discrimination against public transport schemes in the allocation of resources?

Will the Minister give us an undertaking that his Department will work with local authority associations to develop a package approach to transport investment in urban areas under the provisions in the Bill? Does he accept that there is a need to develop a transport investment programme embracing all transport modes, which would replace existing trunk road and the transport supplementary grants programme? Will the Minister undertake to inform the promoters of major public transport schemes whether such schemes have passed grant appraisal, even if the Treasury tells him and his fellow Ministers that funds are not available and, given its habitual parsimony, are unlikely to be available in the foreseeable future?

I want now to consider part II and the introduction of a new regime controlling the use of drink and drugs by those who work on the railways. Working in the railway industry is, from my experience, to become involved in a mixture of long-standing rules and regulations and to be subject to an everyday system of discipline which is almost akin to military life.

The observance of numerous rules and regulations by those working in extremely responsible albeit pretty shabbily paid jobs explains the 150- year-old safety record of railways and lies behind my belief that a modern railway system is still the safest mode of transport. However, over the years there have been a number of railway accidents which have been partly or completely alcohol--related. In a modern high-speed, high-technology railway environment, the provisions of the Railway Regulation Act 1842

Column 51

about the conduct of what were known then, and in my experience are occasionally still known now, as railway servants, are obviously outdated.

Those of us who are interested in railway matters, railway management, the men and women who work in the industry and their trade unions all support the provisions of part II which deal with those matters. Having said that, there are a number of points that I want to put to the Minister about the introduction of the regulations which are based on the Road Traffic Act 1988.

My first point relates to the decision in the Bill to adopt the same limits of alcohol concentration for a train driver's offence as are prescribed for drivers of motor vehicles. At the outset, we should acknowledge that the driving of trains by drivers whose ability is in anyway impaired by alcohol could lead to consequences far worse than those caused by drivers of even the heaviest motor vehicles.

The British Medical Association has written to hon. Members about the Bill and has made known its concern at the possibility of a person driving a train with a blood alcohol concentration above 80 mg per 100 ml. It is right to draw our attention to that. The best possible concentration of alcohol while a driver is on duty is zero. It should certainly be less than the proposal in the Bill. The possible anomaly to which the Under-Secretary of State rightly drew our attention was the subject of discussion behind the scenes. A Treasury solicitor suggested to the draftsmen of the Bill that, unless we varied the proposed limits, it would be anomalous, to say the least, for the driver of a Manchester metro vehicle to be prosecuted if his blood alcohol count was less than that of the driver of a motor vehicle with whom he had collided.

The Minister was right to say that this debate is not the time or place to consider blood alcohol levels and whether the levels should be reduced, but none of us would enjoy being told that the driver of our train had been breathalysed and had revealed a blood alcohol level slightly below the legal limit and was then, under the provisions of the Bill, free to drive the train. I am sure that all hon. Members would accept that the best alcohol limit for train drivers is zero. However, I appreciate the difficulty of enforcing such a provision.

Mr. McLoughlin : This important point requires clarification. Under BR's code of employment, it would be an offence for a driver to have taken alcohol before coming on duty. The Bill is concerned about criminal negligence or liability, and that is a point for wider debate. However, it should not be thought that we condone people driving trains if they have consumed alcohol before taking charge of those trains. The difference between criminal law and BR's operational guidelines is important.

Mr. Snape : I understand that, and I am grateful to the Minister for pointing it out. He is aware that the BMA has expressed considerable reservations about the enforcement of the levels and about the legislation, particularly given the lack of experience of the transport police in administering the law in respect of railway staff. Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether the provisions of the Bill will be operated specifically and only by the transport police. Mr. McLoughlin indicated dissent.

Column 52

Mr. Snape : We shall be asking for more details in Committee about who else will be involved and how they will discharge their duties. While I stress that we believe that the safest limit is no alcohol at all, we should be reluctant to see the Metropolitan police in London entering railway property willy-nilly to enforce the provisions of the Bill. Could that happen under part II? Will police forces other than the transport police be responsible for administering certain aspects of the Bill?

Mr. McLoughlin : The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Primarily, it will be for the British Transport police to carry out the tests. However, other police forces will also be able to enforce provisions if a transport police constable is not available, or in relation to systems not covered by the British Transport Police, such as tramways, preserved railways and the Tyne and Wear metro. Normally, however, one would expect the transport police to be responsible, but it is possible for other police officers to conduct tests.

Mr. Snape : I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that, and we shall wish to return to the matter in Committee because there must be safeguards on both sides. In Committee we shall consider the way in which this merited and necessary change in the law can be administered.

Chapter II of part II provides for amendments to legislation dealing with railways and similar systems and the footpaths that cross them. It amends the Highways Act 1980 to allow closure or diversion of footpath crossings on grounds of safety. That part of the Bill has been strongly opposed by the Ramblers Association, but I imagine that it will be welcomed by railway locomotive drivers who, for example, face more than 100 such crossings whenever they drive from King's Cross to Newcastle.

The blocking of footpaths and the removal of rights of way are obviously contentious. As a former railwayman, I read the views of the Ramblers Association with some scepticism. In its brief, the Ramblers Association has stated that it

"doubts whether such new powers are needed."

That shows a failure to appreciate the dangers of crossing a railway line. Those dangers were amply illustrated by the recent terrible accident at Carr lane crossing, Doncaster, when a woman and two small children were killed.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose --

Mr. Snape : I know that my hon. Friend will have something to say about this matter and I shall give way to him later.

In the case to which I have referred, the footpath to a privately owned nature reserve crossed five railway tracks. The maximum speed of trains on at least two of those tracks was 125 mph. At that speed, pedestrians would have had seven seconds from the time the train came into view until it reached the crossing. For the Ramblers Association to state :

"BR should be required to improve safety or make reasonable alternative provision, for example by building a bridge"

demonstrates a lack of feeling for the views of the bereaved and for the two drivers involved, both of whom will remember that tragedy every day for the rest of their lives.

Mr. Bennett : The Ramblers Association does not dispute that there is a problem. It has made it quite clear that it believes that the existing legislation can deal with

Column 53

such matters. The association has stated clearly that it is up to British Rail--and, perhaps, the Government--to take such dangers into account if they wish to increase railway speeds, as many of us would like, and to ensure that people can cross the line safely, even if that means the Government providing the money either for an underpass of for a bridge over the line.

Mr. Snape : I am aware that the Ramblers Association has said that, but there are 100 such crossings on the east coast main line, which is the example that I gave. Is my hon. Friend saying that an alternative method of crossing should be provided for each and every one? If so, I must advise him--and Conservative Members before they intervene--that that is not a commitment that I should like to make on behalf of any future Labour Administration because it would be an unreal commitment.

Indeed, the Ramblers Association has gone further than my hon. Friend has suggested in connection with that line, and has stated that, if British Rail increases the speed on a line, it will also be reducing the safety on it. I do not see it like that, and I am sure that the nation as a whole would not either. If we were to take the Ramblers Association's argument to its logical conclusion, every train on the east coast main line would be preceded by a man on foot, carrying a red flag, in case someone wanted to walk in front of the train.

Mr. Bennett : Does my hon. Friend accept that, if British Rail has decided that only 13 of those crossings are unsafe, it therefore appears to believe that 87 are perfectly safe? Is that not an interesting observation? Surely, if only 13 of the 100 crossings are unsafe, it is not unreasonable for British Rail at least to propose alternative crossings at some of those points. I am sure that if British Rail had done that, the ramblers would have been prepared to compromise. They were upset because British Rail wanted to close 13 crossings as unsafe without offering to provide alternatives at any of them.

Mr. Snape : I am not here to defend British Rail's management decisions--I am usually better at condemning them--but during the passage of the legislation to which my hon. Friend referred earlier, British Rail stated that it had picked the least safe of the 100 crossings to which I have referred. From my discussions with British Rail, I know that it made specific proposals for the diversion of at least four of the crossings and that the Ramblers Association objected to them all. There must be some co- operation from both sides.

I do not think that British Rail should be given carte blanche to abolish rights of way on every railway track, but where train speeds and frequencies are as great as on the line to which I have referred, we must recognise that the combination of pedestrians and such high-speed trains is deadly. The evidence that proves just how deadly that combination can be is on my side. I hope that at a later stage we can persuade the Minister that a compromise is possible, feasible and affordable.

Opposition Members support clause 56, which seeks to make the directors and managers of British Rail personally liable for offences attributable to their neglect. In the aftermath of the Clapham disaster, I am sure that the House will agree that such a provision is both necessary and overdue.

We also welcome the provision in part III that removes the use of the private Bill procedure to obtain powers that

Column 54

could be granted by orders for harbours. I should, however, like the Minister to clarify the issue of rights of way in dock areas, where I do not think that many trains will be travelling at the high speed of 125 mph. Such orders are often made in connection with works. However, diversions or blockages of a right of way can be considered under the provisions of part I.

So far, we have achieved a degree of unanimity. Although we welcome the Bill, we shall subject it to detailed scrutiny in Committee. I give an undertaking, however, that we shall not attempt to delay its progress unduly. Both sides of the House could and should support most of its provisions, but where improvements are necessary we shall be pressing them on the Minister, and I hope that we shall receive as fair a hearing from him as I have tried to give his Bill this afternoon.

5.25 pm

Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch) : As this is a tightly drawn Bill, there is no opportunity of making a general speech on transport matters, and I have no intention of trying to abuse the procedures of the House by doing so. I welcome the presence on the Treasury Bench of my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, in addition to my hon. Friend the Minister for Shipping. I have rarely met two Ministers who take more trouble to carry out the duties of their ministerial office. The presence of my hon. Friend the Minister of State shows that he does not miss any opportunity to listen to his colleagues.

We are dealing with a time-honoured procedure. Those who have some knowledge of railway history will recall what was known in the last century and in the early years of this century as "the railway interest". One can only assume that, if the Bill had been introduced 70 or 80 years ago, the House would have been rather more crowded than today. Although I welcome the presence of my. hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) immediately in front of me, I should have welcomed equally the presence of the attractive blonde lady who was sitting in front of me last week, but she obviously has other things to do this week.

Although it is clear that the House welcomes the Bill, the provisions appear to have been drafted largely with British Rail in mind. Before I comment on the Bill in any detail, I must declare a possible future interest with British Rail in activities that are unrelated to my parliamentary duties. I say that more in hope than expectation, but one never knows.

My main concern about the Bill is its possible effect on some of our preserved railways. I am not sure, but I believe that I am the unpaid, unofficial "parliamentary friend" of the Association of Independent Railways Ltd. That body has not yet contacted me about the Bill although the Association of Railway Preservation Societies and David Morgan thereof certainly have. I should like to put to my hon. Friend the Minister one or two points which, due to his courtesy, I have been able to discuss with him briefly during the past few days. I hope that he will take on board some of the concerns that have been expressed to me.

Almost all the proprietors of the preserved railways are members of either the Association of Independent Railways or the Association of Railway Preservation Societies, and carried more than 6 million passengers on their railways in 1989, which is the latest year for which I have the full figures.

Column 55

Like any other railway, a preserved railway normally requires statutory authority for its operations, which nowadays-- until the Bill becomes law--is, in practice, enacted under a light railway order. It is likely that, in recent years, a majority of such orders have been sought by the preserved railways under the very procedures that are to be replaced by those laid down in the Bill. Thus, the Bill is of vital interest to those railways, and they are probably much more affected by it than the two earlier speeches have suggested. If we are to look after the legitimate interests of the preserved railways, one or two changes need to be made to the Bill. The first is in connection with Scotland. Although there are no hon. Members from Scottish constituencies in their places at the moment, my hon. Friend the Minister made a passing reference to Scotland, which is one of the issues that I discussed with him the other evening. The memorandum at the front of the Bill refers to ministerial orders in England and Wales, but schedule 4 shows that the whole of the Light Railways Acts 1896 and 1912 are to be repealed ; so Scotland will find itself in an invidious position. My hon. Friend the Minister touched on the matter, but his interpretation was not one which I or the Scottish preserved railways share. He said that, if the Bill is passed unamended, the preserved railways in Scotland would have to be dealt with under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936. That is correct, but not satisfactory. Such an arrangement is potentially much more complex than the existing one. It would be a time-consuming and expensive procedure which required provisional orders under the Act.

It seems wrong that a few legitimate private railways in Scotland should be disadvantaged by the Bill. The only beneficiaries would probably be the lawyers. It is my impression that the Department of Transport has not so far been sympathetic to the potential plight of some of the preserved railways in Scotland. I should prefer to see the Bill amended so that the two Light Railways Acts were repealed only in England and Wales.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give serious consideration to that point. The Conservative party is not exactly in the ascendant in Scotland. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister, who has Scottish ancestry, that to upset large numbers of railway enthusiasts in Scotland would not be of additional help to the Conservative party north of the border. If that is special pleading, so be it.

The second point that worries me is also a minority concern. For some reason best know to those who drafted the Bill, line 23 of clause 60 says that a railway means a system of transport employing parallel rails which

"(b) form a track of a gauge of at least 350 millimetres." At least one narrow-gauge railway in Britain operates on a gauge of 10.5 in, and there may well be others. If those words are retained in the legislation, those railways would still require a light railway order at some time. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that he could simply delete that line of clause 60. I cannot see that it serves any useful purpose.

Everyone in the House welcomes the proposals in the Bill which relate to safety. I have considerable sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). He dispassionately and properly referred to the feelings of locomotive drivers.

Column 56

They are people whom we rarely consider in this House, but when there is a suicide or accident on the railway, the driver, and his mate if appropriate, may be mentally scarred for life by the experience. It is surely incumbent on us to do everything possible to ensure that safety is paramount. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East made the simple proposal that it should be a criminal offence to take any alcohol if one is driving a train. I should certainly like to see the Bill amended to take care of that point.

In his few remarks on clause 56, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East assumed that it referred to British Rail. He talked about British Rail's management. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to imagine the effect of the Bill as it is presently drafted on the preserved and private railways. Such railways are manned mainly by volunteers. Clause 56 could put a terrific burden on the unremunerated directors or officers of a preserved railway. If a ganger was working on the track and was found to be over the limit, a director or manager could be found guilty of a criminal offence. Will my hon. Friend the Minister allow me to bring a delegation from the Association of Railway Preservation Societies to discuss the matter and the other two matters that I have raised? It would make the association feel that it had had a better hearing if it saw the Minister face to face rather than pursuing the matter in correspondence.

Mr. McLoughlin : I give the undertaking that I will meet any delegation that my hon. Friend wishes to bring to me.

Next Section

Home Page