| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Stern: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, I am sure that he will be aware of an exact example of what he is talking about in the application before the national heritage memorial fund for funding for a museum of the empire in the Brunel engine sheds at Temple Meads. Does he agree that that could be of great educational value outside the railway context, and should be encouraged?I am most grateful to him that the Bill will encourage that.
Mr. Robinson: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I agree with him and support that very concept. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will have listened to his words carefully.
Another problem is the drawings from the Brunel era. For their restoration to be eligible for lottery funding, the drawings need to be placed in a trust. That would make it difficult for Railtrack to obtain access to them. Although many of the drawings are in a fragile state, they are still working drawings and, as such, Railtrack is under a statutory obligation to provide copies on request to those responsible for track maintenance. As they are of considerable historical importance to the nation, it is surely not right that they should be ruled out of lottery funding on a technicality of ownership. I should be interested to hear the views of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, when he replies to the debate, on the possibility of extending the criteria for eligibility for lottery funding.
The Bill will extend the protection currently afforded to records and artefacts owned by publicly owned railway companies under the Railways Act 1993 to similar items owned by the bodies that will inherit, or have already inherited, the British Railways Board's assets under the restructuring of the railways industry as a consequence of that Act.
As well as extending the class of owners to be covered by the heritage regime, the Bill makes several other improvements to existing legislation. It provides for the Railway Heritage Committee to delegate its functions to sub-committees and requires owners to furnish it with information relevant to its functions. Those changes will help it to carry on its work more quickly and effectively. Extension to private sector owners introduces several complications, but I am pleased to be able to say that they have been fully tackled in the Bill. Section 125 of the Railways Act 1993 was designed to facilitate consensual arrangements between public sector bodies. The advent of private sector owners necessitates the introduction of a clearer procedure to ensure fairness.
I shall briefly outline how the regime under the Bill would work in practice. When a body to which the Bill applies wished to dispose of a designated artefact or record, it would be required to notify the Railway Heritage Committee of the intended recipient and the terms of disposal. If the committee was unhappy with the intended recipient or the terms, it would be able to direct the owner of the item to offer it to a different person, or on different terms, or both. The owner could dispose of the item only with the committee's consent or under the terms directed by it, but the committee would need to make up its mind within six months, after which the owner could act freely. If the committee determined terms for the disposal, the person to whom the item was offered would have six months in which to act. Any disposals in respect of which the owner did not follow the committee's procedure would be void. That should act as a deterrent and reduce the likelihood of dishonest dealings. Criminal sanctions are not included in the Bill because they are inappropriate--another matter on which we touched in Committee.
The interests of the working railway need to be recognised in the heritage regime if it is to be effective. It is essential that the working railway should function in partnership with the railway heritage community, which is strong in Britain, in ensuring the preservation of historical railway artefacts and records for future generations. In my constituency, the East Somerset railway is an example of the enthusiasm of the railway heritage community.A proposal for the Somerset and Dorset Railway restoration between the towns of Radstock and Shepton Mallet, which runs through my constituency, is shortly due for consideration by the Millennium Commission. I certainly wish it well.
When an item is transferred from a private sector body to a collecting institution under the terms of a direction from the Railway Heritage Committee, the collecting institution pays market value compensation to that body. The committee would not be able to direct an owner to dispose of an item in a way different from that desired by the owner--for example, to direct him to sell when he wishes to lease or vice versa. For the further protection of owners, the committee would be required to give explicit consent to a disposal to which it does not object rather than airily waiting six months for its direction power to expire. Further, if it failed to notify owners that items in their possession had been designated, they would be free to dispose of them.
The Bill does not interfere with the day-to-day operation of the railway. It does not threaten working records and artefacts with compulsory transfer to museums. Transfers of equipment between owners covered by the Bill which, before April 1994, would have been internal British Rail transfers and disposals in accordance with transfer schemes under part II of the Railways Act 1993 would not require directions from the committee. Nor would the new regime prevent modifications to working railway artefacts or records which would extend or enhance their working lives. The paper on the committee's procedures that was circulated to members of the Standing Committee stressed that it was not the committee's view that working railway items of historical significance should be frozen on designation. They are of greater interest if they are modified in the same way as would have been the case had they not been so designated. In any event, the Bill does not give the committee any powers to restrict modifications to designated items.
I should add that I am grateful that the successor companies to British Rail have not objected to the Bill. Indeed, they have shown their support because they are represented on the Railway Heritage Committee.
The Bill would give the Secretary of State the power to give the Railway Heritage Committee guidance. Outline guidance, setting out compensation and dispute resolution arrangements and advising on the wording of directions, was circulated to members of the Standing Committee.
Mr. Stern:
I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make a few brief comments on the Bill, as I was sorry to miss the Second Reading.
My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) mentioned one qualification that I have for being interested in the subject--any hon. Member representing the Bristol region would be, because of the wealth of railway history and railway excellence there.
There are two other qualifications. First, several tributes have been paid during the passage of the Bill to the work done for railway heritage by the late and much lamented Robert Adley. His first seat was Bristol, North-East. On a boundary change, I inherited part of my constituency from that seat, so I can claim with great pleasure that, in speaking today for that constituency, I am in a small way carrying on the tradition.
Mr. Mark Robinson:
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has mentioned Robert Adley, who was a good friend of mine. Indeed, I campaigned for him in Bristol many years ago. I mentioned his contribution on Second Reading. It is a coincidence perhaps, but his widow Jane now lives in my constituency and I know that she will be as delighted about the Bill as anyone.
Mr. Stern:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
The other qualification is that I have the almost unique distinction in the House of representing a constituency in which fresh track has recently been laid and a fresh station built. That is sufficiently rare in the recent history of our railways, so it is worth putting on record that, with the strong support of my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads, Filton Abbey Wood station was built and opened in record time within the past few months. Fresh track had to be laid to it, and it is already up and running as part of the local railway network. That is something on which the railway industry should meditate.
The heritage to which the Bill refers does not merely go back to the original foundation of the railway. Railway heritage is not just about Brunel and the great engineers who worked around him. It is also about the continuing history of a developing industry. Indeed, that development has accelerated. Future historians of the railway will study and admire the expansion that has taken place--so far in a very modest way--and which will be encouraged by recent events, for it is as much a part of that heritage as the sheds at Bristol Temple Meads.
Mr. Robinson:
When we first discussed the Bill, we debated whether it should be confined to historic records. That is why we drafted it to ensure that modern records would be included. Our railways are developing under our very eyes, which delights me. The other day, I read about a new steam engine--being developed in Switzerland--that is supposed to be more environmentally friendly than the present diesel and electric engines.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |