| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
'(d) to identify unmet needs for railway services;
(e) to expand the railway network where appropriate.'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 410, in clause 183, page 102, line 26, at end insert--
'( ) the Secretary of State,'.
No. 408, in page 102, line 33, leave out "directions and".
No. 409, in page 102, line 34, leave out from "strategies" to end of line 38 and insert "of a general nature".
No. 459, in clause 184, page 103, line 19, leave out "and".
No. 460, in page 103, line 21, at end insert--
'and
(g) to facilitate the implementation of local transport plans provided for in section 92 of this Act.'.
No. 419, in clause 195, page 111, leave out line 39 and insert--
( ) 'Provided that before disposing of any land the Authority shall, in consultation with the local transport authority and other interested parties, consider what potential for rail or other sustainable transport related use such land might offer, and protect the land accordingly.'.
No. 413, in clause 201, page 118, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 23.
Mr. Moore: The Minister had some problems with my constituency in Committee, so I remind him that it is Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale.
The amendment would extend the purposes of the Strategic Rail Authority. We are concerned that the Bill does not tackle the problems, mainly affecting rural areas, relating to the expansion of the network under the new regime. We are all aware of the substantial new investment already going into the rail sector and planned for the future. Railtrack recently published its latest network management statement. Over 12 months it has doubled its estimate of the investment to be made in the rail network in the next decade, although the latest list looked more like a wish list and a response to public concerns than a deliberate plan of investment. I am sure that we shall return to that issue in the coming months. Clearly, substantial investment is planned, and we hope that it will be delivered.
The new Strategic Rail Authority planned under the legislation has a crucial role to play in providing a focus for the development of the network and guiding where much of the investment will be made. Those of us who represent rural constituencies understand that many of the great projects connecting the large urban centres will grab the most attention and will require the most significant investment, but we believe that there is a requirement for a statutory duty to be placed on the Strategic Rail Authority to ensure that other parts of the country, particularly where demand for additional rail services has not been met, should be well served.
There are many campaigning groups throughout the country, each with the cherished hope of reopening lines. Reopening lines has become a new industry, in welcome contrast to the pattern of events over the past 30 years or more. There are many examples of groups seeking to reopen important links to particular communities. The proposed Matlock to Buxton line is the subject of a major study. Similarly, hon. Members have supported the reopening of the Sudbury to Cambridge line. As I represent part of the Scottish Borders, it behoves me to mention in passing the Waverley line. If my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) catches your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that he will wax eloquent about the need for that line.
In addition to the campaign groups, various studies are being carried out. DETR is sponsoring one on micro- franchising by the Transport Research and Information Network. That is an exciting idea on which I hope the Minister will be able to update us, as he said in Committee that the report should be produced before too long.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine): I welcome the amendment. Will my hon. Friend clarify the fact that it would encourage the Strategic Rail Authority to look at opening up new routes and stations such as Laurencekirk station in my constituency, on the Aberdeen line? A new station would
encourage people to commute to Aberdeen and enable people living south of Aberdeen to access the rail network for inter-city journeys.
Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend gives an excellent example of the responsibilities that the Strategic Rail Authority would have under the proposed amendment, not simply in respect of the infrastructure links between towns and villages, but also in relation to stations. Clearly it would be important for the authority to work closely with Railtrack.
Why is there suddenly great demand to reinstate many of the lines that were so cruelly put out of use by the Beeching cuts and other misguided developments during the past 30 years and more? My hon. Friend referred to commuting, but economic development is also an important factor. The provision of an alternative route for freight is increasingly an issue for rural communities, not least following the Government's misguided intention of introducing 44-tonne lorries. Quite separately, there is the growing demand for tourism to be boosted by the development of rural rail services. That is not to be underestimated.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), said in Committee that he had last visited my constituency on the old Waverley line. That rather gave away his age. However, he came as a tourist and we have already invited him back so that he can climb the hills in my part of the country.
Apart from commuting and economic development, there is the additional benefit of social inclusion. Many rural communities and some quite sizeable towns are increasingly isolated from the main networks across the country and therefore do not benefit from economic and social benefits. The Government's agenda is clearly fixed on developing measures to tackle social exclusion. We believe that providing rail links where there is clearly a demand for them would help to deliver the social inclusion agenda.
6.45 pm
Those of us who represent constituencies where there were once railways are well aware of the impact of their closure over many years. We believe that the Strategic Rail Authority should be a catalyst for the regeneration of those areas and must knock heads together to ensure that Railtrack, train operators and others deliver proper services.
I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the amendment, but if he believes that it would not achieve what it sets out to do, I hope that he will be able to tell us what guidance the Strategic Rail Authority will be given to ensure that our objectives are met.
Amendment No. 419, on land sales, seeks to ensure that all rail and sustainable development options are fully considered by all the relevant parties before the Strategic Rail Authority enters into the sales process, and that if it identifies proper rail opportunities, the land concerned will enjoy protection from the Strategic Rail Authority and the Government.
The amendment is necessary because there is concern about the way in which the shadow Strategic Rail Authority has been conducting the land sale process.
In Committee, we had impassioned debates on the subject, highlighting the fact that the Government's intention of developing an integrated transport system with railways at its heart was being undermined by the fact that the shadow Strategic Rail Authority--or the British Railways Board--was continuing to enter into open sales of all its remaining land assets. No preferential terms are offered to local authorities or rail interest groups, nor are they given first refusal.In Committee, we emphasised in particular the ludicrous situation in Edinburgh, where the Abbeyhill loop--a crucial part of the infrastructure around Waverley station and a key part of the east coast main line, and therefore of strategic importance nationally--despite having been identified by the local authority as a key area for development, had been included in the sales process. The local authority was facing the dreadful prospect of having to divert resources to fund the acquisition of that piece of land. In Committee the Minister was clearly taken aback by that ludicrous situation, and on our last morning he made the significant announcement that there was to be a reprieve for the Abbeyhill loop; it was to be taken out of the sales process and offered exclusively to Railtrack. I hope that in his reply the hon. Gentleman will let us know how the process has developed, and what steps have been taken since that debate to ensure that the sale to Railtrack is properly under way.
The issue of the Abbeyhill loop highlighted the more general fact that a new procedure was needed. The Government could not argue that they wanted to develop their integrated transport structure under the Bill and promote rail as a first choice in that system, while selling off potentially important bits of land to developers, or anyone else who wanted them.
The Minister said that it should not be necessary to raise each case on the Floor of the House to ensure that action is taken. We welcome that, but if the amendment is not accepted, we need to be reassured that the Minister and his Department have done something to ensure that the sales process undertaken by the shadow Strategic Rail Authority is revised, and that the Minister has issued officials with new guidance.
We have been told that no amendment is necessary, and we would like to believe that. However, as we have demonstrated, the sell-off process has undermined many of the assurances that have been uttered publicly at various stages over many months. Transport 2000 wrote to Sir Alastair Morton, the chairman of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority in February, asking him how he saw the sale process as consistent with the need to protect land, as many local authorities are trying to do, under local transport plans. In particular, it asked at what point the land became safeguarded. Is it when it is in a draft plan that is not yet ratified, or only when the local transport plan has been formalised by the Government, which we realise is still many months away?
The Government are sponsoring various studies of ways in which different modes of transport can integrate, and how we can get rid of some of the congestion on our roads, which we have discussed at length this afternoon. It would surely be premature to allow these key strategic assets to be sold off while those studies are being undertaken and before the local transport plans are finalised.
Transport 2000 advised me that the reply from Sir Alastair Morton was bland, which those who know his public persona may find surprising and unlikely. In any event, Transport 2000 gained no greater reassurance from that response.
We need assurances from the Minister this evening that as soon as land is included in local transport plans or identified as falling into that category, it will be safeguarded. We also need to understand how, under the new procedures introduced for the Abbeyhill loop, the Strategic Rail Authority intends to intervene to protect other land across the United Kingdom.
In a report in the Financial Times on 17 April, Juliette Jowit noted that Tom Winsor, the rail regulator, is revising the Railtrack licence and might give himself the power to veto future Railtrack sales of land--an equally important issue. That point has not, as far as I can see, been echoed elsewhere. It was not touched on in Committee. It is relevant to how the Strategic Rail Authority will proceed, and to other points that I have raised. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate what the regulator's role will be in relation to Railtrack, and what the Government's overall vision is for the protection of land held in the public or private sector which may in the future have strategic use.
Integrated transport is the rallying call of the Bill, and we support it wholeheartedly. However, we do not believe that it will become a reality if the tools for integrating transport are stripped away from the relevant authorities before they take their formal powers. That would be a disaster for the vision; it would undermine what the Government want. We hope that in responding to the amendment, the Government will have a change of heart and demonstrate that they recognise that these are serious issues.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |