House of Commons Hansard Debates for 2 Dec 1991

Mr. Adley : I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I had no doubt that he would say that.

Railway safety is a big subject. It is just one illustration of the double standards that we have tolerated for generations that, for one and half centuries, the House has rightly imposed the strictest safety rules and regulations on the railways, while doing virtually nothing about the roads. The result is that we kill 5,000 people and maim a quarter of a million on our roads in the name of personal convenience. I have often thought that I should like to push through the House a simple single-clause Bill which would reduce death and injury at a stroke : it would be to insist that road traffic operated with signals in the same way as trains. That would save an awful lot of lives and make travelling by train a great deal more attractive and competitive.

I understand from a brief discussion that British Rail is reasonably happy with the Bill. I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) about the delays that could be inherent in the new system proposed by the Bill. None of us would want to find that, at the end of our work, we had produced a piece of legislation that increased the delay in obtaining the approval necessary to build new railways. My hon. Friend the Minister must pay attention to the point that has been made --that time limits must be set for, first, appointing an inspector and secondly, the production of the inspector's report once the inquiry is complete, if not necessarily on the length of the inquiry.

The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made several interventions--I was going to say on behalf of, but that sounds rude ; in which he put the view of--the Ramblers Association. I share the view of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East that it does not make sense to go back to the days of the red flag, but we

Column 57

must find a compromise between the passenger's interest, which is the interest of the railways, and the pedestrian's interest. I say to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish and my hon. Friend the Minister that I do not see why British Rail, as ever, should be expected to bear the full cost. That simply illustrates yet again the inequality and double standard which we employ in the treatment of road versus rail.

If the Government of the day decide that a motorway is to be built and a footpath is to be built over the road, the cost of building a bridge or underpass is all part of the cost of building the motorway, and it is borne by the taxpayers. I see no earthly reason why we should shackle British Rail in providing a better service still in terms of safety and speed if it comes into conflict with those who want to walk across the line. We must find an equitable solution that does not put a yet greater financial burden on British Rail.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if he is as keen as I am to provide a level playing field for road and rail, he should recognise that, when motorways were built around Greater Manchester, of three footpaths that crossed the motorway, one was closed or diverted and bridges or underpasses were put in for the other two. That sort of compromise would be reasonable in dealing with footpaths that cross railways.

Mr. Adley : The hon. Member illustrates my argument--there are double standards. As he said, two of those motorway crossings were paid for by the taxpayer. I shall not pursue the matter further, as I have bored my Back-Bench and Front-Bench colleagues endlessly with it, but it is fair to say that there should be an equal playing field. Talking of double standards, of road versus rail and the Bill, where footpaths are concerned we are talking about the removal of ancient obligations. British Rail has an ancient obligation to pay for its own police force. In this day and age, why should we expect that? Let us think of the cost that the police incur on all our behalfs by attending accidents. Think of the untold billions of pounds spent by the police on attending court cases dealing with so many facets of the internal combustion engine. However, nothing in the Bill would relieve British Rail of that burden, which costs in excess of £40 million a year.

I do not think I would be out of order in recalling a private conversation with the Secretary of State for Transport about a year ago on this subject. He said that he did not think that it was a high priority to ask the Home Secretary to take £40 million out of his budget and put it on to the Secretary of State for Transport's budget. He did not think that he would get away with it. It is a shame that the Bill does not deal with that matter.

Nor does it deal with the historical obligation for British Rail to maintain hundreds of listed buildings. It offered an opportunity to do so. Perhaps those matters may be attended to during the passage of the Bill.

Finally, clause 56 states : "Where an offence under this Part committed by a body corporate is committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body, or a person purporting to act in such a capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of the offence."

We are prepared to clobber the ganger working on the Keighley and Worth Valley railway or his notional supervisor, or send him to prison. Meanwhile, large supermarkets are defying the law by opening on Sundays

Column 58

and abusing society in almost everything they do, but we are doing nothing about it. I should like clause 56 to be utilised to deal with the activities of many other organisations.

I welcome the Bill, I wish it a speedy passage and I hope that some of my suggestions will result in one or two minor changes in it. 5.41 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish) : I welcome the Bill, even though on the surface it hands considerable powers from Parliament to Ministers. I have spent too many hours on these Benches arguing on behalf of Bills, often at considerable length. I have meandered round all sorts of fairly obscure topics, just about pleasing the Chair by remaining in order, knowing that whatever I said it would not make the slightest difference to the outcome of the private Bill. Provided that I and my colleagues could keep going until 10 o'clock, the fate of the Bill would be decided by whether 98 hon. Members returned from dinner or 102. It was a pretty farcical procedure.

Mr. Snape : My hon. Friend is far too modest. We all know that what he terms his "meandering" round private Bills has been responsible for a good deal of heartache and not a little management time in British Rail spent trying to meet some of his objections. Those objections might not always have been covered by the Bill that we were discussing, but we understood his argument.

Mr. Bennett : I accept that, and I admit that there have been occasions when I and other hon. Members have blackmailed various organisations, including British Rail, with the amount of time that we would take in the House unless they did something to improve the position of our constituents.

It is high time that the private Bill procedure was reformed. However, we must be clear in our minds that we are dealing with substantial issues. We are considering the rights of individuals as against the rights of the state and of corporate bodies. We must also recognise that any changes that we make will almost certainly not satisfy people outside. I sometimes think that it would be almost impossible to satisfy them. If someone wants to put a nuclear power station, a new road or railway, a science park, a supermarket or even a public convenience at the bottom of one's garden, most people would not want it. However one designs the procedure--whether a parliamentary procedure or a public inquiry--the majority of poeple will think that it is unfair that it is being forced or inflicted on them.

The Bill will be a better way at least to convince people that they have an opportunity to influence events than the present private Bill procedure. We all know what is supposed to happen. The House debates a Bill on Second Reading and it is passed by chance rather than as a benefit of the arguments. Then the Bill goes to Committee. Four hon. Members are appointed --two from each side of the House--as well as the key appointment, the Chair, who has a casting vote. We all know that all sorts of manipulations take place during the appointment of the members of a Committee.

It always amazes me how Bills which the Government support end up with a Chairman from the Government side of the House, thus giving the Government a majority.

Column 59

People argue and give evidence to the Committee, for perhaps 10 or 12 weeks or longer. In theory, everyone listens carefully to the evidence, but some of us know that the reality has much more to do with the political persuasion of hon. Members appointed to the Committee and to discussions that take place when they are debating. It can be extremely frustrating for people who have to travel to London and face the expense of preparing a case--sometimes employing parliamentary counsel to put their case--knowing that decisions are not necessarily taken on the merits of the arguments but on political considerations.

Mr. Barry Field : I apologise for taking up the time of the House. I chaired the Committee that considered the London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill, which will improve the safety of a number of London underground stations when it takes effect, including Oxford circus, which several million commuters pass through every day. The Labour party, to which the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) belongs, objected to that Bill and voted against it. Is he suggesting that, by wanting to improve safety in one of our biggest underground stations, I am a Government stooge?

Mr. Bennett : I am not suggesting that. However, various political considerations come into play with some Bills rather than their merits. Any hon. Member who does not understand that is relatively naive.

It is important that we discuss the new procedure. There may be problems and differences between the two sides of the House over the way in which we plan Britain, especially as we move into the next century. The Conservatives have a tendency to believe that planning decisions can be taken on the profit motive. Opposition Members believe that there should be more objective planning criteria. Some of the measures that will come before us will have international or national significance and others will have regional or local significance. Under the Bill there will be problems deciding whether the matter has local or national significance. Perhaps I may pursue that in Committee.

Another question is whether Parliament should give its approval first before a public inquiry is held or whether Parliament should have a say after the inquiry. There is also the question of the evidence put to Parliament, and I want to take up those issues in Committee.

I press the Minister to consider carefully the order-making procedures. For most of my time in the House, I have been dissatisfied with them in the same way as I was dissatisfied with private Bills. I am dissatisfied with the way in which the House deals with secondary legislation. Whether it is affirmative orders for national schemes or negative orders for local schemes, the procedure is very unsatisfactory.

When hon. Members table an amendment to a Bill, it can concentrate the Minister's mind on a clause or section and occasionally hon. Members can be persuaded to force amendments on the Government. It is almost impossible to form a coalition of interests to get something changed in a statutory instrument or an order, so if there is broad agreement that an instrument is a good idea, one must either take it all or have nothing to do with it.

Column 60

Mr. Cryer : Will my hon. Friend further agree, on that important issue, that it cannot be argued that there are no precedents of statutory instruments being subject to amendment? For example, orders relating to the census are subject to just that procedure.

Mr. Bennett : My hon. Friend makes a good point. I regularly argue with the Table Office that we can table amendments to Bills which make provision for orders that are amendable because of the census legislation. I cannot recall it precisely, but I believe that there is one other parliamentary precedent to that effect.

In Committee, the Minister invariably points out that Parliament has a simple way of dealing with orders and that we should stick to it. He points out that they are negative or affirmative orders and that the Standing Orders of the House lay down that such matters may be debated for an hour and a half after 10 o'clock.

Although we are now debating a piece of works legislation, it represents a major reform of parliamentary procedure, so I put down a marker at this stage to the effect that the Minister should be more forthcoming in considering whether we should have new procedures for dealing with orders. Such new procedures could allow for longer debates, perhaps in Committee, with the ability to amend regulations and with provision for an effective vote to take place in Committee. It is nonsense for us to debate such matters in Committee for an hour and a half and then, at the end of the debate, we vote not on the merits of the matter but on whether it has been considered. A day or two later--whenever it suits the Government--the theoretical actual vote takes place on the Floor of the House and, if a Division is called, most hon. Members do not know what they are voting about. On this occasion, because of the unique nature of the measure, we should be prepared to consider in Committee changing the way in which we deal with statutory instruments, enabling us to give them more adequate scrutiny. That is especially so at this time, when we are effectively handing from Parliament to Ministers the right to decide, on private Bills, to lay orders. That is a considerable sacrifice of parliamentary power. Although I accept that it is right for us to do that, a counterbalance should be a more effective way of scrutinising affirmative and negative orders.

Various organisations have lobbied me about the Bill. I join the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) in pointing out that the Inland Waterways Association believes that it was not sufficiently consulted on the Bill. That association is particularly concerned about a measure that is proceeding through the other place and the question whether it will be dropped and be replaced by the provisions relating to canals in this legislation. I hope that, when we come to that part of the Bill in Committee, the Minister will assure us that the association has been consulted and its fears allayed.

The fears of ramblers' associations about closures have been rehearsed. I appreciate everything that has been said about the need to maintain safety standards. We must be equally concerned about the effect of what we do on engine drivers. Historically, British Rail and its predecessors have argued to the House for certain railway lines to be built in a particular way. They argued at that time that pedestrian crossings of railways were perfectly safe.

Column 61

For almost every railway line built by the different railway companies--permission for which was passed by the House in different eras--we laid down different procedures. It was common for some to build footpaths across the lines and in other cases bridges were built. Indeed, on some lines, bridges were built on almost all occasions. It should be possible to obtain a compromise which is effective in the legislation and which says, in effect, "There will be some crossings which are so rarely used that people are not inconvenienced by their closure." In other cases, a simple diversion, often involving the use of a private crossing that already belongs to British Rail, could be brought into use to enable people to cross in safety. In some instances it will be necessary to provide a bridge or underpass.

I am often upset when people approach British Rail on the safety issue and ask how much it would cost to do the job properly. The price quoted for a bridge or underpass is always horrendous. The old railway companies had almost Meccano kits for bridges which were built as standard in various places. They varied only according to whether the approach was from the right or left. If it was possible to do that in the past, it should be possible now for British Rail to design relatively cheap crossing facilities.

I appreciate that there are problems. In one instance, when a local authority was asked to approve a bridge, which could have been built relatively cheaply, the authority refused because, it said, the bridge must be suitable for use by the disabled. I appreciate the arguments that go on nowadays, but let us not forget that the old crossings were not suitable for the disabled, which is why, in the case to which I am referring, it seemed unnecessary for the authority to insist on a ramp being built. I hope that in Committee we can make some progress on that front.

I have received a set of objections from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It is concerned about the implications of the legislation on estuaries. I am keen for the Bill to cover estuaries, in view of my experience with private Bills over the years. In the 1970s many local authority Bills were introduced dealing with issues such as procession clauses. More recently, we have had many railway Bills. I predict that, if we do not reform matters, we shall have introduced a large number of Bills dealing with estuaries. There are power schemes and other proposed developments involving estuaries. That particularly applies to the Severn and the Mersey. There are schemes on hand for virtually every estuary in the country and it is important for the legislation to cover them. At the same time, we must have a proper national debate to see how many estuaries can be changed from being tidal areas, where there is extremely good feeding for birds, to areas which, in effect, become inland lakes. That has significance nationally and internationally, especially if we reduce the facilities for large numbers of birds. We must ensure that there are proper safeguards in legislation. Although a scheme may appear local in nature and the amount of an estuary that it encloses or otherwise alters, we must take the national significance into account for breeding birds. I am worried by the enthusiasm of some of my constituents for the Bengal tiger and rare species in various parts of the world, while tending to disregard animals in our local habitats. I hope that we can deal with that, too, in Committee.

Column 62

We must look carefully at environmental statements which accompany orders flowing from the legislation. I appeal to the Minister to give at least some consideration to how far the environmental statement should come from a neutral source rather than from the promoters. Although promoters may employ reputable consultants, it is difficult for a consultant to a project to put all the disadvantages from the environmental point of view as thoroughly and firmly as would be done by a totally neutral person. I urge the Minister to bear that in mind.

Many attempts have been made in the House to reform the private Bill procedure and many of them have collapsed because it has always been easier for a private measure to be introduced. We must do all we can in the coming few years to block any parliamentary private Bill which could as easily be dealt with through this legislation. It is a question for the Court of Referees, and it will be a matter for the House.

I would have hoped that the Minister might have spelt out more clearly the fact that he would not expect any more private works Bills to be introduced. We have had 23 this year, of which 13 or 14 have been works Bills. They may go through, but I hope that he will make it clear that, in the next Session of Parliament, this legislation will apply, and anybody considering introducing a works Bill will do so through this legislation and not as a private measure.

I hope that we shall have a useful Committee stage in which many of the points that I have made can be answered.

5.59 pm

Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight) : No mention of private Bills would be complete without paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) for the way in which he chaired the Committee which sought to untangle this web. His knowledge and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) is considerable. I also pay tribute to Mr. Willoughby and the staff of the Private Bill Office, whose courtesy is unfailing. They have assisted many hon. Members, including myself, in fathoming the difficult procedure.

No mention of private Bill procedure would be complete without mentioning the Dartford warbler. It is always endangered and turns up whenever we discuss a private Bill. Whether it is the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill or the Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill, the Dartford warbler is always certain to be nesting in the middle of the projected works. If we ever want to save endangered species, the private Bill procedure may be one way to ensure that they are more plentiful.

The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) assured me that a Labour Secretary of State would be bound by the timetable that he proposes for public Bill procedures. However, the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill took 41 hours to be discussed in the Chamber and 86 hours on 24 days, spread over five months, to be discussed in Committee. After several weeks, the Committee's proceedings were suspended because a Labour Member departed from the Committee. As Chairman of Ways and Means, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, attempted to resolve the situation and eventually you made history in the House by deciding that the Committee would be quorate with just two members.

Column 63

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Order. As I recall, the Chairman of Ways and Means did not attempt to resolve this situation--he did so.

Mr. Field : Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you did so most expeditiously. I would not be so ungallant as to doubt the word of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East today, but given the pressure that Labour Members placed on that Bill, a serious question mark would hang over any Labour Secretary of State who did not give way to pressure regarding the timetabling of a public inquiry procedure and who did not take some time to allow the result to be published or deliberated on.

Mr. Snape : I was beginning to fear that the preamble to the hon. Gentleman's speech was part of the delaying tactic that he denounces. I made a couple of moderately long speeches on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, but we are not discussing existing procedure. The undertaking that I gave refers to the Bill before us. It refers not to truncating the inquiry but to the timescale before appointing an inspector and publishing the report. I can only give an undertaking and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept it in the spirit in which it is given. I hope that he will also accept that Conservative Members have used the existing procedure to delay legislation which they have disliked over the years, which is why we want to change it.

Mr. Field : The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it would not be the first inspector's decision that took some time to see the light of day once it had been referred to a Department. That was the point that I was trying to make.

I have been in the House for only a short time, but since I have been here I have been involved in a number of private Bills. The Isle of Wight Bill was my alma mater. Because of the activities of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) in holding it up, I eventually became the wrecker of every other private Bill. It always amuses me when Liberal Democrats accuse me of having a ministerial career. If only they had seen the correspondence that flowed to party chairmen from "Horrified of the Home Counties" when some of those Bills hit the deck ; one example was the correspondence from the lighthouse keepers association. Some of my colleagues, even to this day, hardly speak to me because of how their Bills were delayed. With your wonderful knowledge of the Bible, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you produced the Lazarus motion which revived them all from the dead and they eventually passed on their way through the House.

I also served on the Committee considering the London Local Authority Bill which was, remarkably, opposed by the ice-cream alliance when the SDP and the Liberal Democrats were in a state of meltdown. That Bill abused the rights of individuals to object to private Bills. London local authorities had delayed hearing petitioners' cases and put them to considerable inconvenience. In July 1990, I chaired the Committee on the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Bill, which subsequently passed into the trust ports legislation, about which I hope we shall hear more before the end of the year. Recently, I chaired the Committee on the London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill, to which there were some 56 petitioners. We resolved the situation and the Bill was out of

Column 64

Committee within two weeks, so the fact that there are many petitioners or objectors to private legislation does not always delay it.

For more than three centuries, large-scale projects of public significance, such as the building of railways, the construction of bridges, and the regulation and construction of ports, have required the authority of an Act of Parliament. The sanctioning of transport infrastructure, central to the development of national commerce and industry, requires the careful balancing of national and local needs, environmental issues and the interests of the private individuals affected. It has long been recognised that Parliament is the ultimate planning authority best suited to deal with such issues.

There are important constitutional aspects to the Bill. We are transferring substantial power to the Executive and taking away from Back Benchers a power to make decisions, as Committee members, that affect people's lives. The ability and right of hon. Members to legislate on behalf of individual citizens is important. I am worried that the desire for an easy life could lie behind the Bill. Those of us who remember the late-night sittings associated with the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill will remember how difficult the parliamentary timetable was.

Anyone who suggests that public inquiries are a speedy way to resolve matters worries me. Planning inspectors who reach speedy decisions ar rarer than rocking horse manure. As a device for speeding up matters, the Bill seriously concerns me. If the Crossrail Bill currently before the House were the subject of a public inquiry, I wonder how long it would take. The channel tunnel and Winchester bypass legislation are examples of how public inquiries go on and on. I wonder why we have put our faith in public inquiries in this Bill, especially given that the Government have been so pleased with the result of some of the private Bill procedure.

The other day, Commissioner Ripa di Meana said that one reason why he took action in this country was the amount of correspondence that he receives from the United Kingdom compared with any other EC state. The attention that this country pays to those matters is one reason why it takes so long to resolve them in public inquiries. I am pleased that marinas are included in the Bill. In Ventnor in my constituency, we had a proposal for a marina. Half the population thought that I had a magic parliamentary wand and the other half thought that I was fully in agreement with it, because, knowing private parliamentary procedure as I did, I realised that it would take at least 18 months to two years to come to fruition. They interpreted my rather laid-back approach as an indication that I agreed with the marina, and did not realise that I would not be allowed to take part in the debate.

The Bill allows for guided transport schemes. Will that include buses of the type that are used on the continent? They travel on guided tracks and switch from diesel power to electrical power which allows the bus to be driverless. We shall see more of that sort of transport in the United Kingdom and certainly it is much better for the environment of cities. I hope that the Bill takes cognisance of such future developments.

Clause 7 deals with redundant transport facilities and mentions military installations. Will the clause affect the redundant Victorian piers on our shores? If it does, it will be welcomed in many seaside towns with rather decrepit

Column 65

structures. A long time ago, I asked the Civil Aviation Authority whether it tested its air traffic controllers for drugs or alcohol and I was told that it did not. As I say, I asked a long time ago and I am open to correction.

Mr. Adley : My hon. Friend's mention of clause 7 prompts me to pick up a point that did not occur to me before. My hon. Friend will be familiar with the piers of the former Fort Augustus railway in the highlands. Because of the Bill's effect on Scotland, at what stage could somebody who did not like the piers in the middle of the river use clause 7 in a way which I am sure nobody could have intended?

Mr. Field : Whether intended or not, I hope that they do and that the Minister will offer some comfort on that. Many seaside resorts are fed up with the state of their piers and the Isle of Wight is no exception. We would like a procedure to resolve that so as to make our sea fronts more presentable. I hope that the clause encompasses such structures.

I was speaking about the fact that the CAA does not test its air traffic controllers for drugs or alcohol. That seems remarkable--if it is still the case. We now rightly propose to test train drivers for drugs and alcohol, but it seems that air traffic controllers are not tested. If that is correct, perhaps we could extend the Bill's provisions to include such testing. The Minister will appreciate that it is an important matter, although I do not say for a moment that air traffic controllers suffer from problems of alcohol or drugs. Many companies now adopt such test procedures. Esso tests its bowser drivers and merchant naval officers. This is a suitable area for extension.

Mr. McLoughlin : I can help my hon. Friend on this. Under the Air Navigation Order 1989, it is an offence for air crew to be under the influence of drink or drugs. From 1 October 1991 air traffic controllers have been subject to the same requirements as air crew. I hope that answers my hon. Friend's point. We shall consider the matter to see if further legislation is needed.

Mr. Field : My hon. Friend has given me a full answer, and I am pleased to note it.

Will the harbour orders cope with the fact that for some time the Royal Navy has been trying to give up its Solent navigational and harbour duties outside the Queen's harbour jurisdiction? I do not know whether the Royal Navy is on the record about that. It is extraordinary that the Navy is responsible not only for the eastern part of the Solent but for the navigational aids in that area. I have often asked the Secretary of State for Defence about what defence purpose that fulfils. Jurisdiction over Wootton creek on the Isle of Wight by the Queen's harbourmaster seems arcane in this day and age. In that respect, will the harbour orders serve a useful purpose? For some time I have felt that there is an air of Government morality in the private Bill procedure. The Government have worked wonders in rolling back the areas of state ownership and have returned hundreds of valuable assets to the efficient control of private enterprise for the benefit of customers and shareholders. They have not fulfilled all their duties towards those companies, which are required always to jump the hoop of the private Bill procedure. I welcome the fact that recently the

Column 66

Government have been taking over some private Bills, such as the trust ports legislation, and they took over the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.

I hope that the Bill will be a natural precursor and will pave the way for the easier privatisation of British Rail in which, as the Minister knows, I take a deep interest. I even found a purchaser for British Rail's interests in the Isle of Wight. To my consternation, I was held up over that, but it has always been the case that where I lead others will follow tomorrow. I hope that I may soon take the Government with me and that the legislation will enable privatisation of British Rail to proceed much more quickly.

I remain concerned about the speed of public inquiries and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that. If he cannot do so now, perhaps he will deal with it in Committee. Otherwise, I welcome the Bill's principles.

6.16 pm

Mr. Ronnie Fearn (Southport) : Most hon. Members seem to agree that the principles for approving transport projects are antiquated and in great need of reform. I welcome the principle of clause 1, which lays down new procedures for the consideration of transport schemes. Whether it will continue to have my support depends on Government or Opposition amendments in Committee.

I am concerned about some parts of the Bill. When any new transport infrastructure is proposed, conflicts of interest between those affected by the scheme and the need for the infrastructure are difficult to reconcile. Although I accept that the private Bill procedure has not proved to be competent in resolving such conflicts, I am not yet convinced that the public inquiry procedure and our system of compensation are any better.

The Bill gives little detail about the new procedures and leaves much of the process to be decided by rules issued by the Secretary of State. The amount of discretionary power that the Bill gives the Secretary of State is quite wide, and in some areas that is a matter for concern. For instance, clause 9(6) deals with schemes "which in the opinion of the Secretary of State are of national significance".

The Bill does not set out the criteria to be used by the Secretary of State when exercising his powers to decide what is of national significance. The national interest and what is of national significance are far too important to be left to the opinion of the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that in his winding-up speech. I hope to have an opportunity to clarify that point in Committee and to define on the face of the Bill the specifications which constitute a scheme of national significance. I share the concern of the Council for the Protection of Rural England that clause 9 appears to provide for parliamentary authorisation for the principle of a scheme before a public inquiry is held. This is in contradition both with the recommendations of the Joint Committee and with the Department of Transport draft paper. We cannot tell from the Bill whether the order to be presented to Parliament will be accompanied by an environmental statement. Hon. Members will not be able to make a proper judgment about a transport scheme unless they are aware of the impact that its proposals will have on the environment. I was pleased to hear the Minister's reassurances at the beginning of the debate on that matter.

Column 67

However, I was surprised that a Bill such as this, which has the potential to create an explosion in the number of transport projects and wreak havoc with the environment, contains so little about the protection of the environment. The Government's continuing argument with the European Commission about the environmental impact assessments of the east London crossing and the Winchester bypass--the latter has already been mentioned--are examples of their lack of commitment in this respect. The Government should take the opportunity of the passage of a Bill such as this to make a clear statement about their objectives on environmental issues. If the procedures set out in clause 9 are not reversed, the clause will limit the terms of reference of any inquiry and may prevent consideration of alternative schemes. It may also hamper legitimate and important objections, particularly if they raise issues of principle. Under the present procedure, a Select Committee can reject a scheme after investigation, whereas in the proposed procedures, the outcome of the public inquiry will be limited to modifications of the scheme rather than outright objection. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

Before giving full approval to part I, I shall be looking to ensure that the right for members of the public and their representatives to be heard is not diminished by the proposals. Those who can demonstrate an interest, including amenity bodies, must be ensured of a full hearing. The Bill must set out clearly the conditions within which a public inquiry will be held, the consultation process and the rights of third parties. Only then can we be sure that the powers in the Bill will not be used to ride roughshod over the wishes of local people and the public at large.

I do not see any new procedures working without a clear statement from the Government setting out a coherent transport strategy. The removal of the decision-making process from Parliament to the hands of local government and public inquiries may be welcome, but it must be accompanied by a transport strategy and that we do not see here. The decision-making bodies must have a framework within which they can work, confident that their decisions will be upheld.

Our transport systems have suffered from lack of investment, lack of direction and short-term piecemeal decisions without a clear and coherent policy. The Bill could plunge us deeper into the mire by an explosion in the number of projects for light supertram systems, built for their entrepreneurial opportunities rather than in the interests of the community.

The Bill is an enabling Bill. Its powers are permissive rather than mandatory. The Secretary of State is the one who blows the whistle. The interpretation and application of the Bill may reflect the ideologies of a Secretary of State rather than the transport and environmental needs of the country. The Bill must be seen in the light of the Government's desire to give free rein to the market economy and to privatise the railways and any other form of public transport. Some of the clauses in part I should be amended to clarify the proposed procedures and make them more specific. I hope that the Secretary of State will make draft rules available to the Committee before we start our proceedings.

Column 68

Part II, which provides for safety on rail and other guided transport systems, has my full support. Some clauses may require amending, or will at least be the subject of much discussion. These are the clauses pertaining to the permitted levels of alcohol and to the procedures of evidence. Some of the discretionary powers of the Secretary of State should perhaps be amended to place a duty on him, but that will be a matter for the Committee.

Another subject that will require attention is the stopping up and diverting of public footpaths and bridleways in the interest of safety. As the Bill stands, there will be no requirement on British Rail to provide alternative means of access. That is a cause of concern to the Ramblers Association, the Open Spaces Society and other groups. Judging from what I have heard, other hon. Members will, like me, be seeking assurances that the provisions will not seriously reduce access to the extent that it affects the quality of life, particularly for the elderly, infirm or disabled. Near Southport is what people call the "devil's crossing". To my knowledge, at least three people have been killed there and I have heard that it may be as many as six, so we need a safety provision that will satisfy the Ramblers Association and others who have complained about it.

On the whole, I expect part II to be given a smooth passage through all its stages. However, I stress that I do not see the safety measures taking the place of more effective means of making our transport system safe. The criminalisation of public transport drivers may be necessary, but it should not deter us from insisting on adequate investment to introduce other measures which may provide a greater guarantee of safety. For example, the introduction of automatic train protection to stop drivers going through a red light is probably a more effective measure. The Clapham and King's Cross disasters arose from under-investment and overworked staff, not irresponsible drivers.

I and my party are in full agreement with the principle behind the Bill. We have reservations about part I, but these could be partly dispelled if the Government would announce a clear and coherent transport strategy.

I hope that the Minister will answer one question for me. Once the proposed procedures are in place, what role will the Secretary of State for the Environment play in transport matters? He is the Minister responsible for local government, where many of the decisions will be taken. The recent transfer of the docklands light railway from London Transport to the London docklands development corporation has brought that system within his sphere. His plans for the development of the east Thames corridor will, I am sure, encompass various transport schemes, including the channel tunnel. Given all this, will the Minister clarify who is to have ultimate responsibility for transport matters? Will he clearly spell out the lines of responsibility, and where they lie?

6.26 pm

Mr. Alan Amos (Hexham) : I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister for Shipping on bringing forward this much-needed and sensible measure. The Bill will improve the way in which transport schemes are dealt with, while reducing the burden on Parliament and thereby enabling it to concentrate its time on those matters which are more properly its responsibility.

Column 69

Part I provides a much better system, by which railways, tramways, other guided transport schemes and canal works can be approved by ministerial order instead of, as at present, by a private Bill. The order will give all the necessary and specific authority, including compulsory purchase and planning permission. It implements the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure and will reduce the number of private Bills by an estimated half. Replacing private Bills in this way will play an important part in the Government's wider plans to release more time and reform the grossly inefficient and antediluvian way in which Parliament conducts its business in the last decade of the 20th century.

The growth in the number of private Bills relating to rail and light rail projects, together with a much greater interest in, and highly organised support for and opposition to, such schemes has meant that the burden on Parliament has become intolerable, while the time taken to process the applications has dramatically increased. This is not in the interest of Parliament, the promoters of private Bills or those affected by the planned developments. In the last Session, 23 of the 28 private Bills dealt with transport or transport-related matters and took on average 19 months to receive Royal Assent.

Any proposal to speed up this process is to be warmly welcomed, particularly given the escalating construction costs of those much-needed projects, which are frequently delayed in the House not by reasoned and constructive debate but by filibustering designed to block the whole project and kill the Bill--a ploy that can succeed unless 100 Members happen to be available to support a clause. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) referred to this earlier on.

It is wrong that procedures should be allowed to get in the way of improving our transport infrastructure. The job of Parliament is to remove as many unnecessary obstacles as possible to the ability of private and public enterprise to undertake capital projects. As the Joint Committee rightly said :

"Private Bills are not in the opinion of the Committee an appropriate system for authorising works of purely local significance. The Committee would regard the transfer of power from Parliament in these cases not as a substantial constitutional shift, but as a logical step in a pattern of historical development and a necessary response to modern requirements."

Sensibly and neatly, the Bill makes the distinction between local and national schemes. Those that are of essentially local importance will henceforth be authorised by means of a local public inquiry rather than detailed scrutiny by Members. These schemes will inevitably be speeded up considerably. For those projects of strategic and/or national importance, Parliament will properly have an opportunity to debate and approve the principles and policy involved before the scheme goes for detailed scrutiny to a local inquiry. In that way, due weight can be given by the inquiry to the wider implications of the scheme.

There must be a suitable balance between national and local interests, but it cannot be acceptable that very localised concerns should prevent a major strategic project from proceeding as soon as possible. If public funds are responsible for the construction costs, the wider public have the right to expect that their interests are given due account. But even private sector promoters are entitled to have the wider national benefits of their schemes given maximum weight.

Column 70

Part II deals with important safety measures, including new police powers to test drivers and other persons working on the railways for drink and drugs. The measures are to be warmly welcomed. I hope that the proposals, which have been both warmly and widely welcomed within and outside the railway industry, will go through the parliamentary process unopposed.

Also to be welcomed are the new powers for the Secretary of State to approve the safety standards of new works, plant and equipment, and to require more reports on accidents and occurrences. The amendment of the safety regulations to ensure that all serious incidents are reported to the railway inspectorate, whether an accident occurs or not, will implement recommendations of the Fennell and Hidden reports. The drafting will cover existing and anticipated forms of transport, and it is a sensible piece of foresight. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me what other forms of transport he might be anticipating. As I have said, it is sensible to include such foresight in the Bill in a technological age. I am especially pleased to see that the Bill will give the police new powers to allow them to breathalyse train and tram operators where there is even a suspicion of an offence, or after an accident. The powers will extend to include all those whose job involves controlling the movement of a vehicle, such as level crossing keepers, as well as guards and drivers.

Train drivers are responsible for far more passengers than car drivers, so the effects of alcohol and/or other drugs on their actions are correspondingly more serious. I agree, therefore, with the British Medical Association that the Bill should require a zero level of blood alcohol for those driving or involved in the operation of railways, trams, and other means of guided transport. I support random breath testing for car drivers, and to be logical and consistent, I should like to see that approach extended to those who are involved in the operation of rail systems.

It is important also to ensure that there will be adequate special training for the British Transport police to enable them to use breath-testing equipment properly in accordance with their duties under clause 30. I am sure that that is something to which my hon. Friend the Minister will be giving attention.

Safety is and will remain British Rail's highest priority. Investment in safety last year was £140 million, and it will reach £330 million over the next three years. All new and recently built trains are being fitted with black box recorders, and pilot tests of automatic train protection equipment are to begin shortly. The Government have rightly made it clear to British Rail that high standards of safety must remain its top priority. All the recommendations of the Hidden report on the Clapham junction accident, which were published in November 1989, either have been or are being implemented. New procedures have been introduced for wiring and testing signals, staff training has been reviewed and procedures for dealing with emergencies have been updated. A further 24 measures are in the pipeline, and two are for later implementation. British Rail's external financing limit for 1990-91 was raised to £700 million in July 1990-- an increase of over £100 million--to pay for safety measures.

British Rail has taken many initiatives which demonstrate its commitment to safety. For example, all staff have been issued with a safety policy statement, and last February a safety plan was published. The fitting of

Column 71

black box data recorders has now begun, as has that of cab radios, together with automatic train protection, a device that is designed to prevent a train from passing a signal at danger and to control a train's speed if the driver does not. Two pilot schemes are now being tested on the Chiltern line and on the Paddington-Bristol line. In conclusion--

Next Section

Home Page