| Railways and Transport Safety Bill
|
|
Mr. Spellar: Will the hon. Lady tell us the price at which she bought her Railtrack shares? The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady will not answer that—this is not the stock exchange. Miss McIntosh: And I am not a financial adviser, you will be pleased to learn, Mr. Hurst. Suffice it to say that I feel so passionate about the rail industry that I took the first opportunity to purchase shares in companies such as Railtrack and Eurotunnel. The price was whatever it was at the outset. Perhaps if the Minister shared my passion, the rail industry would not be in the mess it is in today under his stewardship. I return to the circumstances in which an independent regulator would be forced to resign. Tom Winsor and I debated that in the former Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. The rail regulator was clear that his independence could be removed only by Parliament, yet the Bill goes counter to that. Schedule 1 goes to the heart of the independence of the rail regulator. I wish to record my— Mr. Jamieson: Interest? Miss McIntosh: My distress. My interest is already recorded. I record my distress and disappointment for the rail regulator, who has been exemplary in his performance, who could not have behaved better, and who has shown himself to be a man of integrity and strength in difficult circumstances. His reward for that is to be removed by a Bill. Under what circumstances would the Minister for Transport expect the chairman or another board member to
How would the Government react if the Office of Rail Regulation proposed a course of action similar to that proposed by the rail regulator, and all the members of the board resigned en masse? Would they simply reappoint the chairman and the other members of the board, or would they accept the resignations and find alternative appointees? Paragraph 1(2)(b) of the schedule relates to what the rail regulator informed the Select Committee were the only circumstances under which his independence would be removed. However, I believe—I could be proved wrong and the matter is up for debate—that the schedule is vindictive and seeks to get rid of an individual who has proven to be independent and a man of integrity. I seek the Minister's guidance on how paragraph 1(2) puts into place the five guiding principles proposed by the Better Regulation Task Force—transparency, accountability, proportionality, consistency and targeting. We all want the railway Column Number: 128 industry to have a degree of economic independence. The idea has been tested to the full, but it seems that the reward for acting independently is for the body to have its independence removed by the provision before us this morning.
9.15 amThe schedule says that the chairman or other member of the Office of Rail Regulation ''shall hold and'', curiously,
I seek assistance from the Minister on that: I have limited experience in Committee, but I have not seen that expression before. When I have been employed in the past, I never noticed a clause in my contract stating that I should vacate office in accordance with my appointment. It is a curious and rather vulgar expression, and I look forward to hearing the Minister shed some light on it. We are told in paragraph 1(3):
The chairman may be minded to have alongside him as a fellow member the present regulator who, I repeat, is a man of integrity and independence who could bring a sense of stability to the new office in view of the difficult decisions that have to be taken. Would a place be available for the present regulator if the chairman of the Office of Rail Regulation wanted him? Paragraph 2 is deeply worrying:
What would happen if someone were genuinely ill for three months? Someone doing a good job could be seriously ill and have to be absent for longer than that period. That provision is strict and unnecessary. People can also be dismissed where they have
Will the Minister take note and help us with what counts as ''personal interest''? We are clearer about paragraph 2(c) on bankruptcy, but paragraph 2(d) curiously uses the phrase ''has misbehaved''. I am sure that Government Members sometimes feel that I am misbehaving, but happily they are guided by your good self, Mr. Hurst. What does the Bill mean when it says that someone can be dismissed from office because they have misbehaved? What misbehaviour could be construed as grounds for dismissal? Again, it is a curious expression, and I wonder whether it is a common one among Government advisers and parliamentary draftsmen? What misbehaviour would be sufficient to cause the Secretary of State to dismiss a member? What concerns me is that the chairman or a member of the Office of Rail Regulation may behave in a way that is not pleasing to the Secretary of State. It would the most appalling state of affairs if he could construe that as misbehaviour. The office of the present rail regulator is being removed by the Bill to be replaced by a different office with five members, who may serve Column Number: 129 for five, 10, 15 or 20 years; but if they misbehave, they will be dismissed. It would help to know what form of misbehaviour is meant.Mr. Spellar: On the slightly naive assumption that the hon. Lady is not spinning out the debate and playing for time, I reassure her that the phrase ''hold and vacate office'' is used in section 1(4) of the Railways Act 1993, passed by her own party—so there is no change. I am advised that misbehaviour is the ground on which the current regulator may be dismissed under section 1(3) of the Railways Act. It is a commonly used expression. Unless the hon. Lady is playing for time, in which case we shall just have to sit here and be bored, I assure her that such common phrases are used in many regulations made by Governments of both parties. Miss McIntosh: That is helpful. I regret that we could not have had this discussion between 3.30 pm and 5 pm last Thursday when the Minister had to be in another place. Mr. Spellar: We had another Minister. Miss McIntosh: In that case, I do not know why we did not discuss these matters then. Mr. Spellar: I can enlighten the hon. Lady. I understand that Divisions were expected in the House and the Opposition Whip suggested that we adjourn. Miss McIntosh: I understood that an agreement was made on how far we would get, and that we would adjourn at 5 pm. The Chairman: Order. Whatever we did on Thursday afternoon, we are discussing the matter now. Miss McIntosh: I am delighted to be doing so, Mr. Hurst, and I am most grateful to the Minister for his helpful remarks. Paragraph 3, on staffing, states:
Does the Minister envisage the excellent present rail regulator duly occupying that post, and will the Secretary of State make such a recommendation? I hope that the Minister will confirm that he would welcome that. It would be nice to hear him say that the present regulator has done a good job and is a man of integrity, and that he is not being removed because of a personality clash with a past Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister's silence speaks for itself. Paragraph 3 further states that, before appointing a chief executive, the office should
What reward will the chairman and chief executive receive for fulfilling those functions? What will be the total cost of the Office of the Rail Regulator? I shall talk about that in more detail when we come to paragraph 11, but the chairman and chief executive alone will cost more than the present rail regulator. The Better Regulation Task Force report does not say that the chairman and the chief executive should cost the taxpayer more money. How do the Government square that in the overall scheme? Column Number: 130 Paragraph 4(1) states that the office may appoint ''other employees''. I assume that the office may appoint employees in addition to the chairman and at least four other members appointed by the Secretary of State. That raises the question of how many employees the Government envisage the office encompassing. Will it have the same composition as the rail regulator's team? Will many more people be needed to service the office given that it will have a chairman, a chief executive and at least three other members? If so, what will be the cost to the Exchequer? Will it be announced in the Budget for 2003–04? The arrangements may not have been agreed with the Treasury, given that paragraph 4(2) states:
Mr. Foster: On a point of order, Mr. Hurst. The schedule has 97 lines. The hon. Lady has occupied the crease for half an hour and covered 33 of them. Might I be able to take a break for about an hour until she finishes? What would your advice be? The Chairman: Order. It is for Members to decide how they address questions. Miss McIntosh: Thank you, Mr. Hurst. I ask the Minister to address my remarks, because I want to know when he expects to raise these issues with the Treasury and when the House will be told the overall budget. I would prefer to be told today, before we leave schedule 1. It is right and proper that we should ask such questions now, and I am surprised that the Liberal Democrat spokesman is not concerned about the cost and the size of the Office of Rail Regulation. I am told that service as an employee of the office is employment in the civil service of the state, so I repeat my earlier question: how many employees and officials do the Government expect the office to have? Paragraph 6 states:
What will be the composition of those committees? Will there be remuneration committees and pension committees? Will committees examine the way in which the office functions? How will they function in terms of the five principles of the Better Regulation Task Force? How many people do the Government expect to service the committees? How many officials of the Office of Rail Regulation will be required to man them? Paragraph 7 seems a good provision. It tells us:
Will that happen in the context of regulations introduced outside schedule 1? I am concerned that we do not know in more detail what the office's constitution will be. Paragraph 8 seems perfectly normal and proper. Column Number: 131 Paragraph 9 states:
That is a very wide-ranging power. For the sake of clarity, the Minister might like to say how that provision compares with the equivalent provision in the Railways Act 1993. I am surprised that the Minister has not used the Bill to respond to the specific request by the former Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions that the Government clarify once and for all the specific relationship between the rail regulator—now to be the Office of Rail Regulation—and the Strategic Rail Authority. I should have thought that schedule 1 was the right and proper place to set out what that formal relationship would be. Why has that not been done? The power in paragraph 9(1) seems very wide. Subject to what the Minister says, I should like to express our concerns about that. On paragraph 10, how long does he think that a vacancy would be allowed to remain before the place was taken?
9.30 amParagraph 11 relates to money. It states:
What will be the overall budget for the Office of Rail Regulation? The Government have been deeply embarrassed by pension provision for the Lord Chancellor, and Opposition Members want to help the Government to avoid similar embarrassment in future. I should like to know for certain what pension provision has been made in respect of paragraph 11(b). Will a committee on the remuneration of pensions be set up in the Office of Rail Regulation? If so, who will man it? Will it be comprised of all the board members, or of non-executive directors? If they are non-executive people, will they be remunerated? Again, what budget will there be for that? It is appalling to have schedule 1, particularly paragraph 11, before us when we have not been told what the budget will be. The cost of Network Rail is running at £20 billion and rising, but the Government have not yet placed that figure on the balance sheet. Under the Office of Rail Regulation, they will increase expenditure over that currently spent on the rail regulator. Will the Minister be so good as to tell us the budget? Paragraph 13 says that there is scope for further spending. It states:
Will that amount be capped? Will we be told what relationship it has to the salary? Can we at the very Column Number: 132 least be told what the salary and pension provision will be?I assume that the provisions on conflict of interest are similar to those in the Railways Act 1993. I hope that the Minister has had sufficient time to gather his thoughts and respond to those pertinent points.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 11 February 2003 |
