| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.56 pm
Railtrack
1 pm
On resuming--
Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon):
I am pleased to be able to bring to the House's attention the serious question of Railtrack's activities through its attempted use of permitted development rights in Oxford; and the wider questions of whether companies, particularly privatised utilities such as Railtrack should be able to exercise permitted development rights; and, also--if they are allowed to do so--what forms of consultation with local communities they should undertake and what bearing those consultations should have on outcomes. There is the further question of whether it is appropriate, fair and an act of natural justice for compensation to be payable by local authorities to private companies when those local authorities are successful in defending their local environment.
My constituency interest arises from the proposed development of a ballast storage facility, or what Railtrack calls a virtual quarry, at Hinksey sidings, which abuts my constituency, especially the community of South Hinksey. The site itself and another group of residents who are greatly affected by the proposals--those in New Hinksey and South Oxford--are in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), whom I see in his place. The right hon. Gentleman has taken a long and careful interest in the matter and has, like me, heard representations from local people for many months. I am sure that he has passed those on to the Government and added his own representations. Railtrack's activities concern many other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who intends, after I have concluded my remarks, to raise the question of Railtrack's general attitude to development in his area.
I feel strongly about the subject, because Railtrack's activities in the case I shall describe have been appalling, not only in its proposals--though one might even argue that the company is entitled to make proposals--but in its response to subsequent events. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich(Mr. Raynsford) who is to wind up the debate, will be aware that Railtrack has an important responsibility to improve the country's rail network--to upgrade existing rail lines to ensure that they can take faster trains, thereby enabling services to be improved, and to build more lines where necessary. I understand that that requires the laying down of large amounts of hard rock; and that to make that an effective method of building railway lines, Railtrack has to create storage facilities for the quarried rock around the country; and that 13 or 14 such sites are required.
The proposal that Railtrack made in respect of Hinksey sidings in Oxfordshire is for the 13th, or almost the last, of those stockpiling facilities. It has met with strong opposition because of the green-belt status of the site on which the company has chosen to build the storage facility. The fact that it would be a large, highly visible pile of rocks and stones, together with the added noise and dust pollution resulting from stones being transported to and from the site, would significantly reduce the amenity of people living in the area. There has been
strong local opposition, not only to the concept and the likelihood of pollution, but to the activities of Railtrack subsequent to events and the manner and mode of its consultation.
One would expect Railtrack to have made a thorough environmental impact assessment before the consultation period started. One would expect Railtrack to communicate carefully with local democratically elected representatives, including, but not exclusively, Members of Parliament. One would expect Railtrack to have given adequate consideration to other options before settling on the proposed site. However, Railtrack has been clearly seen by local people and independent observers to have failed in every single one of those duties, even though they are only the minimum that one could expect the company to perform.
Although we understand that Railtrack has to do its job, the company has to understand that it, as custodian to a large extent of the country's environment, has to balance that need to get on with its job with sensitivity to the environment. The Liberal Democrats have always believed that to protect the environment might in the short term cost a little more in purely financial terms, but that it is an investment worth making, not only for the sake of the improved quality of life and benefits that extend from a good environment, but because certain aspects of our environment and landscape are finite resources. Those sentiments have been echoed by Ministers who say they are concerned with the principle of protecting the environment.
It is clear that, by the time Railtrack produced its proposals, it had not considered either the environmental costs of choosing the site, or seriously considered choosing a different site which might have been more expensive, but which would have done the job at a lower environmental cost. One has to ask whether Railtrack failed to do that because it was concerned solely with its profits--profits that the newly appointed independent rail regulator has recently judged to be excessive. The company is now under the microscope as to whether it is concerned solely with potential profits and shareholder dividends, rather than with its wider social responsibilities. It is a monopoly organisation, so it should pay special attention to those wider responsibilities. It has inherited certain rights and responsibilities from a publicly owned corporation, British Rail, which, for all its faults, would not have acted in as shabby and arrogant a manner as Railtrack has exhibited in Oxford.
When the consultation process opened, we were led to believe that it would be a valid process--that whatever the views expressed by local people and their representatives, they would be heeded by Railtrack. To my disappointment, but not to any great surprise, I have recently learnt that a contract covering the site named as Hinksey sidings had already been signed, sealed and delivered to Midland Quarry Products by the time that that company released its prospectus on 1 June; yet the consultation with local people started much later that summer. I have asked the Minister about the need for Railtrack to carry out adequate consultation. His reply stated that guidance on non-statutory consultation makes it clear that
Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes):
Does my hon. Friend agree that the unsatisfactory situation to which he rightly draws our attention is a consequence of the curious legal position in which Railtrack finds itself? As a private sector monopolistic company with public sector benefits inherited from British Rail, it should be investing far more in, for example, safety. It is overcharging some of the train operating companies for work done to stations. It is important that, when the strategic rail authority is established, powers should be taken away from Railtrack. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful if the Minister set out today what powers are to be stripped from Railtrack as part of the Government's review of the rail industry?
Dr. Harris:
I endorse everything that my hon. Friend has said, and I pay tribute to his sterling work in this area. He has been a thorn in the side of those who seek to exploit their monopoly position and pollute the environment. Railtrack's approach in this matter contrasts with its rather grand environmental policy statement produced in the corporate responsibility review 1997-98--I shall allow the word "responsibility" to hang in the air for a few minutes and return later to the question whether Railtrack is acting responsibly. The statement says:
Railtrack may find that its actions will count against it. Local residents have now witnessed at first hand the spoiling of the local amenity. They have heard the noise created by that activity and seen--and, I fear, suffered from--the dust pollution. All of the potential fears raised about the project have been realised even before the
Secretary of State reaches a decision regarding the article 4 direction. The concerns of my constituents and the constituents of the right hon. Member for Oxford, East have been validated by Railtrack's recent actions in creating a stockpile, de facto.
I think that it is arrogant for Railtrack to proceed while the Secretary of State's decision regarding the article 4 direction is pending. I hope that it will get its come-uppance in the form of representations to the Minister from local people detailing the damage to the environment and to the local amenity as a result of Railtrack's actions.
In view of those local concerns, Oxfordshire county council took the correct--although brave--decision to issue an article 4 direction which, if upheld by the Secretary of State, would force Railtrack to submit to the due planning process. The Minister knows that his Department received that article 4 direction on 2 November, and it informed me on 9 November that a decision would be made as soon as possible. There are clearly broader issues involved and a significant--indeed, a landmark--decision will have to be taken. So I might understand why the Secretary of State has delayed his decision. However, I seek his reassurance that Railtrack's decision to press on with its proposal will not have a bearing on his ultimate ruling, which should be based on the environmental merits of the case and not any situation that Railtrack has manufactured at the time that the decision is taken.
I now come to the question of compensation as it relates to this case. If Oxfordshire county council is successful and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions confirms the article 4 direction, Railtrack will be forced to undertake the normal planning process--which most would expect to be the normal procedure, given that this is a green-belt area. If Railtrack fails to secure planning permission and does not win any appeal, can it be right that Oxfordshire county council--which had succeeded in preventing a development that, in the view of the planning authorities, would damage the environment--should be forced to pay compensation? Moreover, such compensation would be paid out of the limited funds that are needed for the education of children and the provision of social services to the vulnerable, the young, the elderly and the mentally ill in Oxfordshire. Is it appropriate that the council should pay millions of pounds in compensation to a private company which has acted in such a manner, and which, in the view of the independent Rail Regulator, already makes excessive profits?
"both local planning authorities and the public should be informed of proposals for permitted development which are likely to affect them significantly, before the proposals are finalised."--[Official Report, 9 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 22.]
16 Dec 1998 : Column 936
There is no doubt that Railtrack, in its own mind, and in its contract with the sub-contractors, finalised the proposals even before consultation had started.
The specific problems that were drawn to Railtrack's attention during the so-called consultation related to the impact of noise on local people's enjoyment of their homes and gardens and the amenity of local playgroups and doctors' surgeries. All those groups made representations saying that the noise--effectively that of quarrying work--would significantly reduce their quality of life. Another representation was made in respect of health concerns relating to dust pollution. Railtrack sought to give reassurance in respect of both those matters, saying that there would not be significant noise disturbance because of the distances involved and that the stone would be thoroughly washed at source, so there would be little or no dust.
"We will ensure that new projects . . . are managed professionally in a way which incorporates assessment of environmental impact and takes appropriate action to keep any adverse impacts to a minimum.
Before my hon. Friend's intervention, I was referring to my constituents' many concerns about the project, including noise and dust pollution. Railtrack has demonstrated breathtaking irresponsibility by proceeding with the development of the ballast stockpiling facility while an article 4 direction is pending--especially in view of its statements that it was prepared to listen and enter into genuine consultation.
We will aim to be sensitive in our management of natural and heritage features, taking into consideration the views of all those with an interest in our activities and working with them where appropriate."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |