| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Amos : I did, this morning, and I wrote it in great detail. Although road projects are already catered for by the planning and public inquiry system, this is a good opportunity to urge the taking of action to speed up pre-construction procedures for road improvement, which already tend to be slower than the existing procedures for railways. Many of the delays occur when the Department of Transport is considering the next stage --for example, at the conclusion of public consultation or after a public inquiry. Gestation periods of 20 years or more are common for major road schemes in Britain, and not only major motorway schemes such as the M40 extension from Oxford to Birmingham, the M3 Winchester bypass and the M20 missing link from Maidstone to Ashford. I shall not pursue that, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know that you would rule me out of order. I have made the point, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister has noted it.
The Bill is a good, sensible and useful measure, and I wish it a speedy passage.
6.36 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : I rise with some pleasure because I dare say that I am the only hon. Member who for many years past has had the pleasure of obtaining a light railway order and transfer order to transfer the powers of the Light Railways Act 1896, as amended by the Light Railways Act 1912, to apply to the five-mile Keighley and Worth Valley light railway in west Yorkshire. I am the owner of five shares, which have never received a dividend. They were part of the £3,500 capital with which the venture was started. That is when the railway was transferred to the Keighley and Worth Valley light railway.
The procedures under which powers were obtained to run what was a standard- guage standard railway for the purpose of a light railway operation proved to be flexible and reasonable. They ensured that there were proper and adequate standards of operation. The fact that amateurs run many light railways does not detract from the need to ensure that they have the highest standards of operation, which is commensurate with public safety. Light railways have proved that they have been able to meet those standards. The Keighley and Worth Valley light railway has been a tremendous success. When it was started, many potential critics thought that it would go bankrupt in a year or two.
I seek an assurance from the Minister that the new legislation will not prevent access and flexibility through the repeal of existing legislation. The Light Railways Acts 1896 and 1912 are both to be repealed by the appropriate schedule to the Bill and I am not too happy that that legislation should be replaced by a series of orders.
Column 72
We recognise that the private Bill procedure has been unsatisfactory, and dissatisfaction has been stimulated by the way in which the Government have abused the procedure, and by little else. We must ensure that it is replaced by a good system and that we do not succumb to the temptation merely to hand over order-making powers to the Minister so that Parliament is reduced to a legislative sausage machine in which there is no scrutiny of legislation. Nearly all orders are subject to the negative procedure, which means that a prayer has to be tabled to ensure that an order is considered. The procedures for ensuring that prayers are debated are less than adequate and Parliament does not scrutinise delegated legislation in an adequate fashion. It is a matter of concern, therefore, that so many powers should be allocated to the Minister. All the procedures are negative, with the exception of those relating to the powers in clauses 9 and 39 on alcohol limits, which are exercised by the affirmative procedure and require a resolution of the House to gain approval of the instrument.As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, the maximum debating time permitted for an affirmative order is one and a half hours and no amendments are allowed except for a tiny class of instruments. There is no reason why the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments could not consider a new orders procedure that would allow amendments to be produced and for debate to extend beyond the usual one and a half hours when such legislation is considered in Standing Committee.
The Bill provides an opportunity to introduce far better procedures than are now available. I say that in the knowledge that the number of instruments considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments in 1978-79 was 794, and that in 1979-80, in the first Session of a new Government who were meant to take legislation off our backs, the number was 1,800. In 1980-81, the figure dropped to 1,225 ; in 1981-82, to 1,076 ; and in 1982-83, to 786. That latter figure was markedly lower because it was a general election year.
In 1987-88, the number of statutory instruments shot up to 1,947 ; in 1988- 89, to 1,380 ; in 1989-90, to 1,457 ; and in 1990-91, to 1, 366. That is an enormous number. In one two-year period, 260 were reported by the Joint Committee or Select Committee as being defective in some way.
I am concerned that clauses 6, 7 and 10 allow powers to be exercisable by statutory instrument. Where the negative procedure is invoked in respect of other clauses, that is mentioned. I hope that the Minister is noting my comments, because these important points need answering. Clauses 6, 7 and 10 state that the powers that they confer
"shall be exercisable by statutory instrument",
but the procedure is not defined. That is the draftsman's way of saying that the Secretary of State is being given powers to make a statutory instrument that he is not even required to put before Parliament.
That is a legislative disgrace.
If my interpretation is correct, the Minister should come clean. He should make it clear whether that is the case, or whether the fact that the Bill does not state that
Column 73
clauses 6, 7 and 10 shall be subject to annulment is an omission or oversight. That requirement is stated in all the other clauses where order-making powers are listed.Too often in primary legislation, Ministers are given excessive powers. Those included in clause 6 embrace all forms of application for orders under the Bill's general provisions, the rules that apply in respect of any such application, and the fees payable. Therefore, the Secretary of State appears to be giving himself money-making or money-raising powers without any parliamentary accountability being required.
Clauses 6 and 46 give the Secretary of State the power to make directions, but they are not defined in the Bill. Do they have to be in writing? Will they be published? If so, where? Under the other application procedures, reference is made to the London Gazette. If we are to shift a system away from Parliament and the private Bill procedure, we should retain at least some element of occasional parliamentary scrutiny.
Clause 48, which follows on the failure of British Rail's Bill on the closure of rail crossings, allows a Minister to close a railway crossing by order. Although it is true that the clause stipulates certain criteria, I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish in arguing that there must be cases where the Government could provide a little money to make crossings safer, or to provide bridges to enable pedestrian access.
The railways were built under powers granted by the House which provided for access across railways, and that provision for access should be honoured rather than removed by ministerial fiat. Under clause 24, applications can also be dealt with by appointed persons. The Secretary of State is given the authority to appoint persons to exercise powers given by the Bill--which makes it clear that officers of the Department of Transport, Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office will be permitted to carry out the duties of the Secretary of State.
Many years ago, Thomas Dugdale established an honourable precedent : everyone thought that he was a wonderful man for resigning over the Crichel Down issue, in which he was not directly involved. That precedent has long disappeared. Today, we had the example of the Home Secretary coming to the House to say that he is appealing against a judgment which found him guilty of contempt of court.
If the Secretary of State is to have powers to give civil servants the power to exercise primary legislation, it must be made absolutely clear that the Secretary of State will take responsibility for their actions without qualification and that there will be no shrugging off of responsibility for accidents or errors because something happened to be done by a civil servant. In view of recent examples, we must ask the Minister to make it clear where responsibility will lie in such cases.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) expressed concern that there had been no consultation with organisations representing the interests of waterways and said that it was understood that they would not be included in the Bill. The Minister replied that consultation was continuing, but that is not very satisfactory. We want an assurance that the Minister is prepared to meet delegations from the waterways industry as and when necessary--and that, if they can make a strong enough case, he will table amendments in Committee.
Column 74
There is agreement in all parts of the House on clause 39 and the affirmative procedure in respect of prescribing alcohol and drug limits, but let there be proper standards across the board. The Government should examine, for example, proper ways of dealing with alcohol abuse, which is a serious national problem. In Bradford, an important hospital, Scalebor Park, was closed, with the result that there are no facilities in Bradford now to treat people suffering from alcohol abuse.It is not enough to impose punishments or to increase penalties. They may be necessary, but alcohol is a disease of society. Let us see Government action in curbing advertisements and the glamourising of alcohol. Consider the cheating that goes on when sporting events are televised and huge placards advertising alcohol can be seen in the background. All that should stop.
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) : Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene ?
Mr. Cryer : I would rather not, because I know that the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) hopes to contribute to the debate and I do not wish to prolong my remarks.
I hope that the Minister will give positive replies to the points that have been made. I welcome the Bill in principle, but I remain cautious about its detailed application.
6.48 pm
Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham) : I appreciate the courtesy of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). I also appreciated listening to his experiences as the director of a successful privatised railway company. I hope that we shall soon hear him advocating the extension of that privilege to many more people throughout the country. I welcome the support that has been given to the Bill by all the parties and the constructive, co- operative approach that has been adopted. I say that as one who sat for what seemed like endless months on the Joint Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure under the excellent chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson). That co-operative approach is warmly welcomed.
The Committee agonised for a long time over whether to adopt this radical approach to the transfer of public works Bills out of parliamentary procedures and into the planning procedures. It was not an easy conclusion to reach. We heard representations from many interested parties. I believe that the Committee reached the right decision and that that view is now being endorsed by the reaction of all the parties and, generally speaking, by outside bodies. It is a historic decision. The fact that it is being debated in a spirit of co-operation and amity does not mean that it is any the less decisive. A system that has grown up over the centuries is to be changed. The way in which public works of this sort are to be considered during the next century is to be decided by this legislation--if, indeed, to sound a note of caution, it reaches the statute book this Session. I welcome the Bill's early arrival this Session, but who knows what other events might occur to truncate our legislative programme?
I very much hope that the Bill reaches the statute book. It provides a much more efficient and fairer system for dealing public works matters. It cannot be right that
Column 75
decisions on motorways which carved up the countryside were taken by inspectors at public inquiries and by the Secretary of State while the house spent hours and hours debating very small matters such as minor railway diversions and even footpaths. It was an illogical system. The one that we propose is much more logical. It will treat railways--we hope that there will be more of them--as we have treated roads. If one can be dealt with seriously, sensibly and fairly under the planning procedures, I believe that the same logic should be applied to railway projects and, for that matter, to ports. Moreover, the public would regard it as logical.I believe, too, that it is fairer. Like many hon. Members, I have served on many private Bills, but I have never been completely satisfied that it is a fair system. Hon. Members often enjoy taking part, but the system is not always fair to petitioners and promoters. I have sat on Committees that considered Bills at great expense, only for them to return to the Chamber and be defeated by what we, as parliamentarians, believe to be legitimate tactics. However, is it fair to use what is a quasi-judicial system as a means for indulging in parliamentary tricks that should be reserved for public Bills? We have some way to go yet in tightening up the procedures for all private Bills so that they receive fair treatment at all stages. My hon. Friend the Minister should clarify--not necessarily today, but at some stage--the criteria that will be used to determine what is a matter of national significance. It may be impossible to specify that in legislation, but guidelines should be provided.
I had intended to ask about the Bill's impact on the biggest issue of national significance that will come before us--the high-speed rail link. We need to know whether it will be dealt with under this procedure, as a matter of national significance, or under the private Bill procedure as it stands, which it might well have to do, or whether it will be dealt with under the hybrid Bill procedure, in which case all the rules and dangers of that procedure will apply. It is vital that we should be told soon what procedure will be adopted for that scheme. The success or failure of the high-speed link will be determined by the procedures that are adopted. If it is the hybrid Bill procedure or the private Bill procedure, the scheme could be delayed for several years, and I am anxious that that should not happen.
I think that we should all give a warm welcome to the Bill. I hope that it reaches the statute book soon. We must endeavour to get it through Parliament as quickly as we can so that it is not endangered by a general election. I share the wish that public works coming forward for consideration next year should be dealt with under the new procedure, not under our outdated and inadequate procedure. 6.54 pm
Mr. McLoughlin : Unfortunately, I shall not have time to deal with many of the points that have been made in the debate, but I shall endeavour to deal with specific points in Committee.
For obvious reasons, the House has given a warm welcome to the Bill. Some of my hon. Friends referred to the interesting and not so interesting debates that have taken place throughout the past few years on a number of
Column 76
private Bills. It is right, therefore, to try to devise an appropriate procedure to ensure that Bills which go through all their parliamentary stages are not prevented from reaching the statute book late in the day.A number of hon. Members consider that time limits should be imposed on public inquiries. We shall have to consider that issue in Committee. Some difficulties may be encountered, however, over imposing strict time limits on how long the Secretary of State may have to consider inspectors' reports.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) made an important point regarding how schemes of national significance are to be decided. He referred to the high-speed rail link. If it were to come under this procedure, it would be regarded as a matter of national significance and would be debated in the House.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) wants us to adopt criteria. We believe that the criteria may be too inflexible. The Secretary of State will decide each case on its merits and expects only the biggest schemes to be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny. The Secretary of State needs to be flexible, but schemes that are regarded as of great national importance will have to come automatically before the House.
A meeting is being arranged regarding inland waterways. The Bill will have no effect whatever on the Bill that is now in the other place. That should not cause problems for hon. Members.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : Does the Minister accept that the fear is that this Bill duplicates some of the provisions of the Bill now being considered in the other place? Will the Minister agree to meet those concerned before the Bill is considered in Committee so that time can be saved?
Mr. McLoughlin : I very much hope that we can set up a meeting as quickly as possible. It would obviously be practicable to do so before the Bill reaches Committee.
Many references were made to whether we should or should not close public footpaths. That is an important issue. We believe, however, that that is best left to the discretion of local public inquiries. I was grateful for what the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East said. I do not believe that every time a public right of way or public footpath is proposed to be closed it should be necessary to come to the House for approval. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who has great experience of private Bills and other private legislation procedures, amply illustrated the need for the Bill.
I am glad that the Bill has received a generally warm reception. We shall have to discuss a number of issues in Committee, but I believe that all hon. Members wish the Bill to make progress. However, progress must not be made at the expense of getting the legislation wrong. It is important that the legislation can be adapted to meet the many needs that are catered for in private Bills. The aim is not necessarily to speed up their passage, but to ensure that there is a better way of securing progress. I commend the Bill to the House. 6.59 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) : I hope that, before the Bill returns to the Floor of the House, there will be virtually a zero alcohol limit for professional drivers, not a bottle of wine in an hour. Question put and agreed to.
Column 77
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).TRANSPORT AND WORKS BILL [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation have been signified--
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Transport and Works Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of--
(a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act, and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.-- [Mr. McLoughlin.]
Column 78
British Railways Bill
(By Order)
As amended, (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
7 pm
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson (New Forest) : The nice juxtaposition of the remaining stages of the British Railways Bill and the Transport and Works Bill, debate on which preceded it, will not have escaped hon. Members' attention. The latter is likely to make Bills such as the British Railways Bill unnecessary.
The Bill was deposited in November last year, had an unopposed Second Reading on 19 March and was reported on 13 June. It may assist hon. Members if I refresh their memories by saying that the Bill has 47 clauses. In their various ways, all are concerned with improving the general structure of British Rail's operations throughout the country and, so far as is possible, continuing the policy which has been in place for some years of encouraging the transfer of the movement of goods and passengers from road to rail.
In some instances, the principal works outlined in the Bill are reinstatements of old works. For the convenience of the House, I shall go through some of the more important works provisions. Work No. 1 provides for the reinstatement of a chord line at Guide Bridge in Greater Manchester to assist the construction industry in moving stone by rail rather than by heavy lorries. Work No. 2 provides for the reinstatement of a curve at Edge Hill, Liverpool, to allow coal trains for Gladstone dock to reach Fiddler's Ferry power station--again, a move from road to rail.
Work No. 3 provides for the restoration of the rail link between St. Helens and St. Helens junction on the Liverpool and Manchester railway to take account of the new passenger service between St. Helens and Warrington. Work No. 4 provides for a temporary diversion of the railway at Bingley to allow the construction of a bridge for the Airedale trunk road. Works Nos. 5 and 6 allow the construction of two extra tracks on the western approach to Leeds station to handle the increasing number of passenger trains planned for the future with West Yorkshire passenger transport executive.
Work No. 7 relates to the rail link to Dover, which ultimately will be of great significance to the channel tunnel plans. A new footbridge will be provided for pedestrians and the nearby Crow Corner bridge will be widened to take the extra road traffic. It will mean a general improvement in traffic flow in the area.
Work No. 8, which was of significance on Second Reading, provides for the establishment of a chord line at Clarborough near Gainsborough, which will allow coal trains from the Immingham coal terminal to reach Cottam power station direct. It was agreed that it is far better to move coal by rail than by road.
Work No. 9 is for a new siding at Sherburn in Elmet, between Pontefract and York, to carry gypsum trains. That gypsum is a by-product of the flue gas desulphurisation plant at Drax power station, and trains will use the new railway siding which is to be built there.
Small changes were made to the Bill in Committee. As hon. Members will see, they are typographical changes.
Column 79
Under clause 29, three level crossings were to have their status reduced. The Bill was amended so that all three crossings would retain their status as bridleways. That is the only change of any significance. The rest of the Bill contains the normal, standard provisions with which the House will be familiar. They have been included in every British Rail Bill so far and I do not intend to waste time explaining them yet again unless specific questions are raised.It is essential to recognise that the Bill is part of a continuing strategy. It is important, therefore, that it should progress swiftly to the statute book. I am always delighted to play a small part in assisting British Rail to achieve powers which are of such significance to its operational future. I hope that the Bill will be given a Third Reading.
7.6 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) : I do not intend to detain the House for more than a few moments on a Bill which, as the hon. Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) pointed out, makes some additions to our railway system. I am bound to say, however, that a Bill which adds a few metres to our railway system is a poor comparison with provisions in France, where they add to the railway system by hundreds of kilometres at a time. I found it painful to have to talk in metres and kilometres rather than the furlongs and miles which are the normal way of describing lengths of railway, but there is a big difference between what happens in this country and what happens in France, whatever measurements one uses.
My point arises from a statement on behalf of the promoters, which was made available to hon. Members. It stated :
"The Board are continuing with their attempts to negotiate a settlement with those opposing the Bill and, meanwhile, respectfully submit that the Bill should be permitted to pass Consideration stage and proceed to Third Reading."
I wish to counsel hon. Members that all the undertakings and all the arrangements that BR negotiates with people to secure the passage of the Bill must be considered in the light of experience. My experience is that, when BR undertook to restore overnight services on the east coast main line, it did not carry out its undertakings. The result is that I continue to receive a great deal of correspondence from angry constituents who want to know why they cannot have an overnight service to and from London, which they used to have and which could readily be provided.
When those who are still worried about some aspects of the Bill are approached by members of British Rail bearing gifts of concessions and arrangements which they expect to be the basis of letting the Bill proceed through all its stages, I hope that they will bear that experience in mind and recognise that sometimes those undertakings are not worth the paper they are written on. I hope that reminders of what happened in the past will eventually persuade BR to reverse that foolish decision.
7.8 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham) : I recognise that I spoke just before 7 o'clock on the Transport and Works Bill, and it may be worth linking it with the British Railways Bill. I
Column 80
congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir P. McNair-Wilson) on the way in which he presented the Bill.Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Order. Perhaps I should give a little guidance and remind the House that this is a most historic day and a most historic time. For many years, the House has sought to improve the private Bill procedure. It made the changes a short time ago and the rules of debate are therefore new to us today. We are now on Third Reading and the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) can refer not to what might have been or to what should have been but only to precisely what is in the Bill.
Mr. Bottomley : If that debars me from continuing to congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he has presented the Bill, I apologise, but it will probably be in order for me to congratulate a fellow hon. Member on his speech, which is what I was trying to do.
Madam Deputy Speaker : But not to link it to the previous Bill.
Mr. Bottomley : I was going to say, by way of apology, that my service on European Standing Committee B prevented me from being here during the previous debate. Those words are not part of this Bill--I am fully aware of what this Bill is about.
I had not intended to oppose the Bill. My precise reason is dissimilar to those of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), but British Rail has annoyed me. It has found a way to let an operator use part of British Rail property for a market without planning permission. If that continues to be an option for British Rail, I regard it as a suitable reason to oppose many British Rail Bills.
In view of all the fuss about shops opening on Sundays, for British Rail land, made available by agreement or by authority under such Bills, then to be used for another purpose to the exclusion of those who wish to use the railways, makes one wonder whether the new procedures are right or whether Parliament should retain some control under the procedure which will operate if the previous Bill receives Royal Assent. I think that I am right in saying that the Bill received a Second Reading but has not gone through all its stages. The issues that we are discussing are basically about safety and level crossings. I strongly support the idea of British Rail having powers to get rid of unsafe crossings of railway lines, because the speed at which trains now move requires more bridges and more grade separation. It is a mistake for British Rail Bills to leave out powers to close bridleways. My hon. Friend mentioned--as I do in passing--that that change has been made to the Bill since it was last considered on the Floor of the House. As more trains use the lines, and as headway is reduced, people must accept that there is greater danger for those who cross railway lines at rail level.
During my service as a junior Northern Ireland Minister, I had the experience of going to the Slaght level crossing crash outside Ballymena. Anyone who has seen the effect on a train--let alone on a car--of a train hitting a car will understand the importance of supporting British Rail in its basic aim of increasing safety of railway lines.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest mentioned bringing back into use lines which had previously had
Column 81
railways on them. It is an issue on which this country made a mistake compared with France. I think that I am right in saying that, where a railway line was taken up in France, it was not available for other use but was protected.In the United Kingdom--this applies to Great Britain and to Northern Ireland--we have too often allowed small sections of land to pass into other hands at low prices. That is partly due to the ideology of the present Government during the past 12 years--they were not willing to look ahead to see changes in transport needs and to accept that there might be different competitive advantages in different forms of transport.
I strongly support what my hon. Friend said about trying to help to move traffic from the roads to the railways where that is commercially viable and, if necessary, with some subsidy. Again I refer to previous experience, this time at the Department of Transport. Although I was called the Minister for Roads, I strongly supported the apparent subsidies to have heavy goods railheads in quarries and to allow other goods to go by rail where possible and thus to allow British Rail to get freight business as though between consenting adults instead of by Government diktat. That is an important way of allowing British Rail's freight business to become more prosperous.
British Rail should give more consideration to replacements for unsafe and unsatisfactory pedestrian bridges over railways. That also applies to subway tunnels. Many of the bridges and tunnels built in the 1920s and 1930s are no longer satisfactory. There is a greater expectation that people with pushchairs and shopping and that elderly people should be able to take gentle ramps rather than decaying concrete steps.
I hope that, if British Rail is willing to consider the issue, it will examine not only the Sunday market in my constituency, which I regard as unsatisfactory, but the crossing of the railway line at Middle Park, which, although it is not part of this Bill, should be. 7.14 pm
Sir John Farr (Harborough) : I do not want to delay progress, but someone must say that he is not entirely happy about the way in which British Rail has promoted
Column 82
the Bill and about the contents of some of the clauses. Many of us believe that parts of the Bill--especially part III, which has been considered in Committee--could be improved.There is a widely held view in Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and the east midlands in general that British Rail is riding rough shod over many thousands of people and their elected representatives merely by failing to take the opportunities available. For example, part III contains provisions for the purchase of and rights over land, part IV relates to protective possession and part V contains the usual provisions relating to planning permission and arbitration.
A great sense of frustration is building up because many hon. Members feel that the Bill represents a lost opportunity for British Rail. I shall seek to remain in order by referring to what is in the Bill. Nevertheless, I must say briefly that the constant inability of British Rail in successive British Railway Bills to recognise a real need is causing much frustration. If one writes to British Rail, one gets the brush-off. If one writes and asks--or begs--British Rail to include improvements in the Bill which it could easily have done by extending part III, one gets the same treatment.
Part III deals with purchase of land and the rights over land and schedule 3(1) specifies the purpose. Those parts of the Bill are vehicles for British Rail to do work that is publicly demanded but which it resolutely refuses to give even the slightest hint that it contemplates.
I thoroughly welcome the Bill, but it is what is missing that worries me. What is missing and what concerns tens of thousands of us is that the midland main line should be electrified as soon as possible.
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I have given guidance on the rules of debate. This is Third Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
| Next Section
| Home Page |