| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Raynsford: We have had a short but interesting debate on a matter that is of real concern to many hon. Members--in particular those who represent areas that lack rail services or whose constituents do not have a service of a sufficiently high quality.
I will try to respond to the matters raised and to do justice to the range of amendments. There is a wide range of amendments in this group, some of which would have
a different effect from that moved by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), whose constituency name caused a certain amount of merriment and difficulty in Committee. The civil service, with its incomparable skill in finding a way around such a difficulty, quickly had the hon. Gentleman down as "TEL". I will not draw any conclusions as to whether associations could be made with other people with a similar-sounding acronym.The hon. Gentleman made a powerful case for action to deal with areas in his constituency--he sensibly and generously extended his comments to cover a wider area--where the absence of rail services has inevitably affected the availability of public transport options for people in need.
This group of amendments reaches the heart of the reasons for the establishment of the SRA and the way in which it will operate. First, the amendments would add specific items to the primary purposes of the authority and to the manner in which it must exercise its functions, as well as requiring it to review its property portfolio. Secondly, they would affect the overall coherent direction of railway policy by removing the Secretary of State's power to direct the authority and the requirement that the rail regulator should facilitate the furtherance by the authority of any strategies that it has formulated with respect to its purposes.
I shall start with amendment No. 420, as it would add to the fundamental purposes of the authority. The amendment raises an important question: the way in which potential unmet future demand for railway services can be met.
The aims of the amendments--to ensure that the authority identifies unmet needs for railway services and can expand the network where appropriate--are aims with which we totally agree. We are setting up a strategic body to plan for the long-term development of the railway network--to fill a gap that was left when the railways were privatised in a way that weakened the strategic overview. We recognise that demand is growing, that the railway needs developing and that the structure is not in place to meet that challenge. We have said that we want railways to take their rightful place at the heart of an integrated transport system. That is why one of the three high-level purposes that are to be part of the mission statement of the SRA, as set out in clause 182(b), is to
- secure the development of the railway network.
That purpose includes considering the possible expansion of the network and the need for new lines to meet demand where appropriate. We have taken that purpose seriously and have given the SRA the tools to do the job. The SRA will be a facilitator and promoter of schemes. It will not necessarily take forward schemes itself--often that is the proper job of industry or of local authorities.
We have given the authority the tools that it needs in clause 188. Those powers are deliberately wide so that it can encourage and promote the industry by giving financial assistance or can assist in other ways. Where necessary, the authority can go as far as promoting a Bill in Parliament to facilitate growth, or it can request the rail regulator to direct facility owners to enhance facilities or provide new facilities.
It is that variety of tools, along with the high-level purpose to which I referred, that answers the concerns of Liberal Democrat Members as to how their objectives will be met. Schemes to expand the network to meet need will come from a variety of sources. The authority is in the prime position to encourage and support as appropriate. It will take a view on whether a proposal fits with its strategies for securing the development of the network. If it does, it might be commercially viable in its own right and it can be taken forward without difficulty by the industry. In cases where a proposal is not commercially viable, the SRA will be able to consider whether some direct public support is justified. It will have funds such as the rail passenger partnership fund to help with innovative schemes. It can also look at ways of sharing risk between the public and private sectors, where that might be the necessary precondition for getting a scheme to operate.
7.15 pm
Imaginative proposals to reopen lines are already being produced. I am therefore optimistic that the right structure will be in place when the Bill is enacted to enable the objectives so eloquently set out by those on the Liberal Democrat Benches to be met. I can assure the House that the SRA already covers those aims in its primary purposes and that we have given it the tools to do the job.
Amendments Nos. 459 and 460 would adversely affect the manner in which the SRA carried out its functions, and we do not consider them helpful or appropriate. We made it clear in Committee that we expect the SRA to facilitate and lead consultation with local and regional government. The SRA's strategies will promote rail use within an integrated transport system. Consistent with that national framework, the SRA will take account of the views of local and regional bodies. That will involve extensive consultation to identify the opportunities for rail.
We expect decisions about services to be taken in the light of local transport plans. However, the process needs to be a two-way process so that local plans are consistent with the national framework. That is why it is preferable to deal with the relationship in our guidance on local transport plans and in directions and guidance to the SRA, rather than on the face of the Bill. There are a great many policies and plans that the SRA will need to consider and it would be inflexible to specify them all in the Bill. Such a course would also fall foul of a problem that we frequently identified in Committee, to which we referred in shorthand as the "list" problem: if one identifies certain problems but fails to identify others, it is possible to infer that they have not been treated equally seriously.
The shadow SRA is starting to receive local transport plans and to assess them. It will consider all LTPs now that the new regime is in place. I hope that that answers the concerns of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who asked in Committee whether transport plans are being viewed by the shadow SRA. This will be part of a continuing process, as will communication of the shadow SRA strategy to local authorities.
Before I deal with the underlying purpose of amendment No. 419, I should explain to the House that it may be based on a misunderstanding of clause 195. That clause concerns non-operational land that the SRA will inherit from the British Railways Board. By definition,
subsection (2) of the clause relates only to land that the SRA does not need for the discharge of its other functions; that means, for example, land that has no prospect of future railway use. There is no need for the amendment because "land" under clause 195(2) cannot be land with potential rail use. If the land does have the prospect of future railway use, the Bill means that it is dealt with in accordance with the SRA's overall purposes, strategies and functions. That in itself is an important safeguard.If the land does not have a railway use, the Secretary of State can direct the SRA about the way in which the land is to be disposed of. Such a direction could require the SRA to dispose of the land for alternative transport purposes. Cases can also be considered individually by the SRA on their merits.
Setting aside the technical aspects of the amendment, I recognise that the land issues continue to attract attention and concern, and to generate campaigns locally and nationally. The shadow SRA's property review, completed in September 1999, identified some 1,400 sites, of which only 200 were considered to have any transport potential. The remaining properties are small, disparate sites, or sites with development problems of poor access or land contamination. Many are remote from the operational railway.
Since the lifting of the suspension of land sales imposed during the review, the British Railways Board--as part of the shadow SRA--has initiated the first phase of sales, affecting some 600 sites, which will be undertaken under the new marketing process which gives priority to transport uses.
As the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) said in Committee, we cannot simply say that all former railway land should be put to one side. We have to reach decisions on a sensible basis, taking into account whether there is a realistic prospect of rail use in the foreseeable future. That is why the marketing process strikes a balance between disposing of surplus land and ensuring that sites for future transport use are identified.
I repeat to the House the assurance that my hon. Friend gave the Committee: the SRA will not take a short-term view. The creation of the shadow SRA, consisting of BRB and the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising working closely together, means that land decisions by the BRB can be taken in the context of the shadow SRA's strategic considerations. That is a significant improvement. For example, it means that the BRB is not proceeding with the sale of any sites on the proposed east-west route from Cambridge to Oxford until a decision is taken on that important new rail scheme--or, rather, old closed rail scheme which may become a new rail scheme. The BRB will also think very carefully about any strategic freight sites. It will not rush to sell sites with potential for rail freight ahead of other sites in its portfolio, except where there is already a clear demand for them. That demonstrates that we are not repeating past mistakes by acting rashly and ordering BRB to sell off all land as quickly as possible.
We look to Railtrack and the industry to identify and acquire sites with transport potential. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham made it clear in Committee that the current sales process is not inexorable; it can and will be halted where there is strong justification for doing so. If sites with rail potential are not acquired by the rail
industry or local authorities, the shadow SRA will consider whether they should be retained for strategic use. That will involve some careful choices if we are to avoid the problems of blight and lost development opportunities that would otherwise arise if too much land were sterilised in that way. I hope that the commitments given in Committee, which I have repeated today, provide reassurance.The second theme of the group of amendments is to question the way in which we can ensure that overall control and development of the railways pulls in the same direction.
Amendment No. 413 would amend clause 201, which itself amends section 4 of the Railways Act 1993. That sets the general duties of the Rail Regulator--and the Secretary of State--to reflect the changes that we are making in the railway industry. One way in which it does so is to ensure that the Rail Regulator and the authority work on the same broad strategic goals.
The amendment, tabled by Conservative Members, relates to the new duty that we have placed on the Rail Regulator, requiring him to facilitate the furtherance by the authority of its strategies. Let me make this absolutely clear: the Rail Regulator remains independent. It is still for the regulator to balance his various duties and objectives and take decisions that are in the best interests of the railway and its users. However, we need to ensure that, while taking account of these different functions, we align the Rail Regulator's duties as closely as possible with the authority's, so that they are moving in the same direction rather than working against each other.
The strategies that the authority will develop are fundamental to the future of the railway, and will be a vital consideration for the regulator when taking decisions relating to his own functions. It makes no sense to require the authority to formulate strategies if the regulator is free to ignore them. The provision is to preserve the balancing act that the regulator must maintain in carrying out his section 4 duties, and it defines one of the most important relationships between the regulator and the SRA.
Amendments Nos. 410, 408 and 409 are rather different. They seek to reduce substantially the power of the Secretary of State to direct the SRA and to give him instead the role simply of giving guidance and of a consultee. I, for one, do not consider that that is sufficient. Whatever their views on the specific policy, the people of this country are rightly concerned and vocal about transport policy. They expect their elected Government to take transport seriously, which we have done and will continue to do. To do so, we need to retain overall direction of railways policy, which these amendments would take away from us.
The SRA will be at the heart of the future direction and development of the railway network, and its strategies will provide the route map for the future. That is why we have, and need, these powers. The Secretary of State will be accountable to the House for the SRA as well as for its wider policies. To be accountable, he must have some control over the SRA that goes further than guidance or consultation.
It may reassure--or possibly discomfit--the hon. Members for Poole (Mr. Syms) and for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) if I remind them that the powers that they seek to do away with are not new, and are indeed well precedented.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |