| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 723
(9) Regulations may make provision for any area within Great Britain and may make different provision for or in relation to different areas.(10) Any power of the Regulator to make rules under or by virtue of this section includes power to revoke, amend or re-enact any rules so made ; and --
(a) any such rules may make different provision for different cases ; and
(b) without prejudice to paragraph (a) above, subsection (9) above shall apply in relation to any such rules as it applies in relation to regulations.
(11) Subsections (2) to (5) above are without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above.
(12) In this section--
"collectors" means the individuals who perform the function (whether as servants or agents or otherwise) of imposing the charge of a penalty fare on the person liable to pay it under the regulations in each particular case ;
"document", without prejudice to the generality of the expression, includes any badge, token, or photograph or any other form of identification, certification or authentication ;
"prescribed" means specified in, or determined in accordance with, regulations ;
"regulations" means regulations under subsection (1) above ; "station" includes a reference to a part of a station ; "ticket or other authority" shall be construed in accordance with subsection (1) above ;
"train" includes a reference to a part of a train ;
and, subject to that, expressions used in Part I above and in this section have the same meaning in this section as they have in that Part.'.-- [Mr. Norris.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.- - [Mr. Norris.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Dr. Marek.
Dr. Marek : It is all right Government Members moaning. I have been sitting quietly here listening to an interesting debate, but one that took time.
Where a ticket is not available at a station because the ticket office is closed, will there be strict conditions to ensure that--in any zone or other area where a penalty fare may be imposed on a passenger travelling without a ticket--a machine in working order will be in operation to issue an authority to travel? If such an authority is issued, can the passenger be certain of not being refused a discounted or any other ticket that might have been available at the station, had the station ticket office been open? If the Minister can give categorical assurances on those two points, we can deal with the amendment quickly.
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris) : I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he seeks. Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New clause 5
Crown application
.--(1) The following provisions of this Act bind theCrown-- (a) sections 15 to 19 ;
(b) section 43 ;
(c) sections 45 to 48, except sections 45(8) and 48(4) and (5) ;
Column 724
(d) sections 49 to 52 ;(e) sections 74 to 76, 79 to 82, 84 and 85 ;
(f) section 107, except subsections (7) and (8) ;
(g) section 125, so far as relating to other provisions of this Act which bind the Crown ;
(h) Schedules 5, 6 and 7.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) above so far as relating-- (a) to sections 45 to 48 above, or
(b) to section 125 above, so far as relating to those sections, shall authorise proceedings to be brought against Her Majesty in her private capacity.
(3) Subsection (2) above shall be construed as if section 38(3) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (interpretation of references in that Act to Her Majesty in her private capacity) were contained in this Act.'.-- [Mr. Freeman.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New clause 20
Power to make consequential modifications in other Acts etc.
.--(1) The Secretary of State may by order make such modifications of existing provisions as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the provisions of this Act, being modifications in respect of--
(a) any reference in an existing provision to the Board or any subsidiary of the Board ;
(b) any reference (in whatever terms) in an existing provision to any railway, railway service or railway undertaking ;
(c) any reference (in whatever terms) in an existing provision to any person who--
(i) provides a railway service, or
(ii) carries on a railway undertaking,
or who is authorised to do so under or by virtue of any enactment ;
(d) any reference in an existing provision to any enactment amended or repealed by or under this Act ;
(e) any existing provision, so far as appearing to the Secretary of State to be of no further practical utility, having regard to the provisions of this Act ;
(f) any other inconsistency between an existing provision and this Act.
(2) In this section--
"existing provision" means a provision contained in any Act (whether public general or local) passed, or in subordinate legislation made, before the relevant date ;
"railway" has its wider meaning, within the meaning of Part I above ;
"railway service" has the same meaning as in Part I above ; "the relevant date", in relation to any modification, means the date of the coming into force of the provision of this Act on which the modification is consequential ;
"subordinate legislation" has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 1978.'.-- [Mr. Freeman.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New clause 7
Conflict between duties placed on the Regulator and the Secretary of State
(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State or to the Regulator that, in discharging his duty regarding the exercise of the functions assigned or transferred to him under Part I of this Act, the manner best calculated for any reason or at any time under one or more of paragraphs (a) to (h) of subsection(1) of section 4 of this Act may be, to any material extent, inconsistent with his duties under any other such paragraph, he shall refer the matter to the Central Committee.
Column 725
(2) The Central Committee shall consider any matter referred to it under subsection (1) above and may advise the Secretary of State or the Regulator (as the case may be) as to how, in its opinion, he should discharge his duty, having regard to all circumstances and, in the case of any advice to the Regulator, shall send a copy of that advice to the Secretary of State.(3) The Secretary of State or the Regulator (as the case may be) shall have regard to any advice tendered by the Central Committee under subsection (2) above.
(4) Any referral under subsection (1) above may include a requirement that the Central Committee tender its advice with such time (being not less than 28 days from the date of the referral) as may be specified in the referral ; and if such a requirement is not complied with, the Secretary of State or the Regulator (as the case may be) shall proceed as if the Central Committee had considered the matter but had tendered no advice.
(5) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy of any advice received by or sent to him under subsection (2) above.'.-- [Dr. Marek.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr. Marek : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I am glad that I did not hear any moans this time.
This useful clause seeks to help the regulator, who will find himself in difficulty on a number of occasions when trying to perform the various duties imposed on him by clause4. If the regulator has competing claims for his attention under the various subsections of clause 4, by this amendment he could appeal for advice. New clause 7 would give him the freedom to seek the advice of the Central Rail Users Consultative Committee. If it is added, it would make the Bill better and help the regulator to do his or her job.
Mr. Freeman : I accept the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I do not accept the new clause. He argues that the regulator could go to the Central Rail Users Consultative Committee for advice. New clause 7, however, provides for a disputes resolution procedure, whereby if there is any disagreement between the Secretary of State and the regulator it would have to be referred to the Central Rail Users Consultative Committee. I could not agree to that, because the regulator and the Secretary of State have clearly defined separate but parallel duties. They are set out in clause 4 and other provisions of the Bill.
I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's recommendation that the Central Rail Users Consultative Committee should play an important part in offering advice to the regulator. It is a sensible recommendation. There should be a repository of information and experience in that committee. I underline the fact that we wish the committee to have real power and influence and a real job to do. 1 am
Dr. Marek : With the permission of the House, the Minister's reply has not been altogether negative. I invite him to think about how new clause 7 could be redrafted as a result of this exchange. If he could think of a form of words by means of which the regulator could go for advice to the CRCC, perhaps he would consider tabling an appropriate amendment in another place.
There is, however, one problem. There are constraints upon what the CRCC can discuss. An amendment would be needed to allow the CRCC to give advice to the regulator. If questions relating to classes of fares were
Column 726
involved, there would have to be an additional amendment. The CRCC is not, as the Bill is drafted, allowed to discuss such matters. I am pleased with the Minister's reply. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New clause 11
National plan for railway services
(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to formulate a national policy as respects the provision, maintenance and improvement of the railway network in Great Britain and from time to time to review that policy.
(2) In exercising his functions under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability-- (a) of the policy operating in a consistent manner throughout Great Britain ;
(b) of the policy being formulated early enough to enable its implementation to be achieved efficiently and to enable those with functions in relation to the provision, maintenance and improvement of railway services adequately to plan their own policies with respect to the execution of their functions.
(3) Before finally determining his policy in relation to any matter for the purposes of subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall engage in such consultations with those appearing to him to be representative of persons having such functions as are mentioned in subsection (2)(b) above as appear to him to be appropriate. (4) The Secretary of State shall secure that a written report containing a summary of the policy formulated by him under subsection (1) above is prepared before the expiry of the period of twelve months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed and that subsequent reports are prepared at intervals of not more than one year.
(5) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of each report prepared under subsection (4) above before both Houses of Parliament.'.-- [Mr. Rathbone.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Rathbone : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is self-explanatory. It imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to formulate, in consultation with the operators, users and others, a national rail policy for the provision, maintenance and improvement of the railway network. It would provide a consistent framework within which passenger and freight services could be planned and operated over the short, medium and longer term. It would require the Secretary of State to prepare a written report and lay it before both Houses of Parliament.
In moving the new clause, I believe that one should tip one's hat again to our late colleague, Robert Adley. His belief in the way in which British Rail should operate in the future was always dependent upon a national plan for the railway services and a transport policy. Those are reflected in his Select Committee report.
Mr. Freeman : I certainly agree with the spirit of the new clause. I do not commend it to the House, but I can give clear assurances to my hon. Friend that the two key elements of the policy that he has just outlined will be followed. First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will clarify his policy towards a national policy for the railway network, something which my right hon. Friend and I have sought to do on many occasions, particularly before the Select Committee that was chaired by the late Robert Adley. Secondly, I can give an assurance
Column 727
that there will be a written report. Perhaps the right vehicle would be the Department's annual report, which is available to the House. My right hon. Friend confirms that he will ensure that the annual report is written in such a clear fashion as to set out not only the achievements of his policy, but the activities and responsibilities of the regulator, the franchising director and, most important of all, the investment programme.We accept unreservedly the spirit of the new clause. I hope therefore that my hon. Friend will not feel it necessary to press it. I look forward to the production of the first annual report covering the period following Royal Assent and the introduction of our reforms.
Dr. Marek : If the information is to be included in the annual report, let us have a little objectivity rather than a glossy Government public relations handout. If it were objective, with only a few statistics and with level-headed statements, I could go along with what the Minister has just said.
Mr. Peter Bottomley : Without being presumptuous, I hope that, if Robert Adley is looking down on us, he will welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister said. I hope that he will smile at the way in which a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends in particular have debated with Ministers and that, like me, he will regard the outcome as advantageous to the country, as it is likely to help the railway's contribution to the country.
Mr. Rathbone : I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the thought that he has put into the new clause in preparation for its being debated this evening. In light of what he had to say, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Further consideration adjourned.-- [Mr. Patnick.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Mr. Deputy Speaker : With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community documents.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).
Column 728
Company Taxation
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7021/92, relating to company taxation ; endorses the principle of subsidiarity ; believes that Commission proposals should allow for decentralisation of economic policy within member states ; further believes that proposals should take full account of budgetary costs and the world context of Community action ; and opposes measures which would distort the internal market and which bear upon company taxation.
Slaughter of Animals
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 9880/91 and 10306/92 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 15thFebruary and 10th May 1993, relating to the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing ; and supports the Government's intention to seek Community action to ensure high standards of welfare at slaughter which will be implemented and enforced throughout the Community.
Young Workers (Protection)
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 5378/92 and 4690/93 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Employment on 10th May 1993, relating to the protection of young people at work ; endorses the conclusions of the Madrid, Rome and Edinburgh European Councils that measures taken in the field of social affairs should have full regard to their effects on job creation, to the principle of subsidiarity, and to the diversity of national traditions and practices ; and shares the Government's view that, while protection for children and young people at work is essential, existing legislation in the United Kingdom provides appropriate protection, that the need for Community legislation to protect children and young people has not been demonstrated and that the proposed Directive would be damaging to their employment opportunities and prospects.-- [Mr. Patnick.] Question agreed to.
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
Unfair Dismissal
That the draft Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 1st April, be approved.
Legal Aid
That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Scope) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 22nd April, be approved.-- [Mr. Patnick.] Question agreed to.
Column 729
Bypass (Aylesbury)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Patnick.]
1.6 am
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury) : We have waited several hours for the Adjournment debate, but as the Minister will know, my constituents in Aylesbury have waited far longer for their bypass. I welcome the opportunity to draw the Minister's attention and that of the House to the urgent need for better road communication to Aylesbury. I represent the county town of Buckinghamshire, a town designated as a growth area for housing and industry but whose growth is being stifled by inadequate road communication, which has been delayed for far too long.
In all my dealings with my hon. Friend the Minister, I have met with nothing but courtesy and good humour. I know that he will not take it amiss if I sometimes feel that it would take the pen of a Dickens to do justice to the way in which the Department of Transport has behaved with regard to the Aylesbury bypass. The spirit of the Circumlocution Office and its principle of "how not to do it" seems alive and well and is inspiring the Department's work.
The saga began as early as the 1960s, when the need for a bypass for Aylesbury was first recognised. In 1972, the Department of the Environment commissioned a highway feasibility study and concluded that a new trunk road was needed to link Oxford and the A1(M), passing south of Milton Keynes. Eight years later, in 1980, the Department of Transport decided to abandon its plan for a new trunk road in favour of improvements to existing roads and a network of bypasses around the major towns.
The Thame bypass, part of the series of links, was completed in 1980. In 1985, the Department of Transport's document "National Roads, England" called on the three county councils involved--Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire--to make bypass proposals to improve the A418-A505 route. In 1987, the Department of Transport announced in its White Paper that the Government intended to give the new route trunk road status. With that in mind, the Department provided a 100 per cent. grant for the Leighton Linslade bypass, which has now been completed, and proposes to make a 100 per cent. grant available for the proposed Wing bypass.
Buckinghamshire county council, as one would expect because it is an authority that is always active in the interests of its residents, did exactly what the Department of Transport asked. It formulated proposals to bypass Aylesbury. It drew up options for a bypass to the north or to the south of the town. It consulted the Aylesbury Vale district council. It published the alternatives in the local plan to allow full public consideration of the two options.
In 1989, the county council decided on the southern route as more practical and supported decisively by public opinion. Not only that, but the county council was ready to start building the first stage of the bypass linking the Wendover road, the A413, and the Stoke Mandeville road, the B443. The county council had planning permission for the first stage of the route. It had gone to the Secretary of State for Transport to ask whether he wanted to call in the application, and was told that he had no wish so to do.
In 1989, there was a further somersault by the Department of Transport. The White Paper "Roads for
Column 730
Prosperity" stated the Government's intention to develop an east-west corridor between the M40 and the east coast ports. The Department took over from the county council responsibility for the Aylesbury proposals which would form part of that route. Concern was expressed by the local authorities then about possible delays. The Department, as always, was reassuring.Sadly, those reassurances were not borne out in practice. On 13 November 1990, Buckinghamshire's concern about the continuing delay was recorded in the minutes of the Department of Transport's eastern region consultative committee. The Department then said that public consultation on the preferred route would take place in July 1991. That target was not met.
On 23 January 1992, the consultative committee met again and the public papers of the committee show a target date for public consultation on the preferred option of spring 1992. That target was not met. On 8 December 1992, the consultative committee convened once more and the target date was announced as spring or early summer of 1993. That target was not met, and we are told that the target has slipped a further few months to perhaps the autumn of this year. It is little wonder that my constituents are becoming impatient of the Department's promises, which have been so often postponed. I ask my hon. Friend to explain the reasons for the delay. We know that Oxfordshire county council and South Oxfordshire district council object to the southern route and prefer the northern route up to Bicester. The differences between the various local authorities have been known for a long time. They are surely the issues that should be debated at the public inquiry which is now long overdue. The need is now urgent.
Aylesbury is designated as a growth area, and the new proposals for the south-east--SERPLAN--mean still more growth for the town. The housing target set out both in the structure plan and in the local plan cannot be met unless the bypass is built. The bypass has strong support from local business, because every study shows that it is poor road communications more than any other single factor that is holding back the needed growth in Aylesbury's economy and the town's recovery from a severe and long-lasting recession.
What inspired me to apply for this debate was that Aylesbury is now in the ridiculous position whereby new planning applications for businesses to take up vacant lots on industrial estates are being recommended by the county council to the district council for refusal on the grounds that new business would bring in extra traffic and that that would be more than the already congested roads in Aylesbury could bear.
For example, in early 1993 more than 24,000 vehicles passed along Gate House road in Aylesbury, which adjoins major industrial estates, in 12 hours. That was down 1,500 vehicles on the 1990 peak, a peak which I am sure will be reached again as economic recovery in the south-east gathers strength. The single carriageway of that road is inadequate for the purposes that it is supposed to serve. There is a strong economic and social case for the Department to press ahead as quickly as possible with the bypass that it has promised for so long. However, there is also a personal side to this question and that concerns the personal circumstances of my many constituents who live along the proposed route of the bypass.
| Next Section
| Home Page |