|
Mr. Chope: As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, this is a meaty schedule. We know that one of the rationales for the Government's abolishing the SRA is to save money. That will result in a reduction in the number of people
Column Number: 29
employed. In the context of this schedule, can the Minister spell out the detail of how many of the 454 people currently employed by the SRA will have their jobs transferred—in other words, their functions will be replicated under this schedule—and how many will lose their jobs because the functions that they perform will be taken away? That should be an easy assessment for the Minister to carry out; at its heart is the saving that will result from the whole process.
Although we are told that a lot of functions will be abolished, the list of abolitions in the schedule is pretty short. Can I ask the Minister about two of the abolitions that are specified in paragraphs 34 and 36? Paragraph 34 is about the abolition of functions relating to penalty fares. How many people are currently involved in that function, and how often it has been exercised up until now? What impact will its abolition have? Similarly, how many people exercise the powers that are to be abolished under paragraph 36—those under the 2000 Act to provide railway services and substitute bus and taxi services, and to make byelaws? What will be the impact their abolition? Will the railways be able to survive without their being performed? Most of all, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how many of the 454 people will have their functions abolished rather than replicated under the schedule.
Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion) (PC): As this is the first time that I have had an opportunity to speak in this Committee, may I say how pleased I am to be here and to work under you, Mr. Amess? I look forward to our debates, as the Bill has a lot in it for Wales, as well as for the United Kingdom as a whole, and a great deal on devolution, as we discovered under clause 1.
I should like to make some brief comments along the lines of those of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland). Of particular relevance is the SRA's duty to promote the railways as an integrated whole, which many of us welcomed when the SRA was set up. I am sure that clause 3 will give us an opportunity to discuss amendments along those lines, but, as this schedule abolishes that duty, it is relevant to ask the Minister now how he foresees himself undertaking the general promotion of the integration of freight and passenger railway services. That is not easily transferred either to himself, to the National Assembly or to the Scottish Parliament. There is a gap there. While I strongly support devolution, I should not like there to be a lack of integration throughout the UK as a whole, which is essential for the smooth running of services and the promotion of an environmentally sound railway. The promotion of freight comes into that context. This is an opportunity for the Minister to explain that in more detail. I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
The second aspect relates to finance. We are abolishing functions and transferring liabilities as well
Column Number: 30
as the opportunity to spend. It has already been mentioned that this is a possible way of saving money. I am not so concerned about the 400 or so jobs that might be affected. I am concerned about the individual cases, of course, but that is not where the big money is. The big money is in the transfer of functions to the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly. There is an opportunity to ask those national Governments to try to spend on the railways to make up for a possible shortfall from the central Government purse.
As liabilities and spending are transferred it would be useful to have an indication of the sort of negotiations that are going on now about the spending and funding arrangements that will be in place. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross spoke of equity, but we also want to ensure that if Scotland spends a little more on the railways because there is a particular social, environmental or economic need, it can do so without it having a knock on effect on spending in forthcoming years. The same would be true in Wales.
If one of the new bodies that is now undertaking the work of the SRA is prepared to invest a little more as a one-off, how can we prevent that from becoming embedded in the relationship and leading to knock-on effects further down the line? We have to be careful that we do not all jump for joy and see the wonders of transferring functions to Scotland and Wales, but overlook the dangers of not having a carefully worked out relationship and funding formula between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. We have to ensure that there is equity there and equity for many parts of England too. We are all aware of where the funding is going at the moment in the national rail service and what parts of England are being excused from that.
Two key questions lie at the heart of my reading of the schedule. One relates to the overall promotion of the railways, ensuring integration and ensuring that the railways are used in Wales, Scotland and by the Secretary of State as an environmentally safe alternative and a physically safe alternative to road transport for passengers and freight. The second is how we ensure that the promotion does not have spending consequences that could be deleterious to the National Assembly or to the Scottish Parliament. Equity, safety, environmental responsibility and the promotion of an integrated railway are the key concerns. We need to ensure that that still happens, even though we have transferred functions and accountability to different bodies. I am sure that it can be done, but I do not think that we can read a schedule and a clause to find out how it will be done. It is for the Minister to explain and to put the meat on the bones so that we have a sense of the Government's purpose in trying to achieve this end.
Mr. McNulty: As I said earlier, there are some 14 pages to schedule 1. Hon. Members are entirely right: that is where the substance lies, rather than in the clauses. It is therefore appropriate to discuss it. I shall try to pick up on some of the issues that hon. Members have raised. First, there is a tad of confusion over the SRA and the notion of integrated transport. When it
Column Number: 31
was set up the SRA, as its name implies, was charged with a whole range of functions and duties around railways: nothing else, just railways. It was important in that context to put on the face of the Bill that created the SRA the additional function of integrating the railways into all other forms of public transport. That was quite proper.
With the demise of the SRA, given that most of those functions are coming back to the Department for Transport, do we need to maintain that duty? We would argue strongly that we do not. At best, it is a tautology to say that there needs to be a statutory duty in respect of integrated transport on the Department for Transport, with its myriad strategies that, rather like in an episode of ''Yes, Minister'', aspire to an integrated transport system. We say that such a duty is not needed, because it is already there in the substance—in all that we do across the piece.
One of the White Papers issued in July, ''The Future of Transport'', said clearly that we are wedded to an integrated approach. Indeed, it goes beyond that and says that in the course of devolution, of getting some decision-making processes down to a lower level, matters should be addressed far more firmly in an integrated context. We have said that in the context of passenger transport executives and the role of local councils with local transport plans. We have tried to make it as explicit as we can that, with regard to the future of local transport plans and much of what PTEs do, integration should be uppermost in people's minds and in strategies, whether they relate to bus, light rail, rail or whatever. I am talking about what local authorities and PTEs are doing on urban congestion, bus prioritisation and all the other elements.
The duty was very important when creating an organisation specifically to deal with rail. To say that it should have wider regard to integrated transport was appropriate. However, just because we have got rid of that body, it is not necessary to say to a range of other bodies—PTEs, local authorities, the devolved Administrations and the Government—that they should have due regard to an integrated approach, because that is already the aspiration and it is already happening across the piece in legislation, strategies and policies. We do not need anything in the Bill or in other legislation for that to be the case. All those strategies, including our own, will be in the public domain, whether at the level of route utilisation strategies, the overall approach that follows on from the rail White Paper or whatever else.
The second point made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross on equity and the devolved Administrations is fair, and the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) is right. Devolving power or responsibility without equitable resources is not terribly clever or useful with regard to public policy for the central Administration or the devolved Administration. All I can say at the moment is that detailed discussions are ongoing with the Administrations in Scotland and Wales. I can assure
Column Number: 32
the Committee that our goal in the negotiations is equity, but as they are ongoing I cannot at this stage report their outcome.
John Thurso: Will the Minister elaborate on that point? I do not doubt that he is seeking equity and I am sure that Scottish Ministers will also want to come to a good resolution, but he has spoken about a negotiation taking place. Will that negotiation produce a result for this year, and then there will be another negotiation next year and another the year after? Or are the Government and the devolved Administrations seeking to negotiate a formula that at least puts in place broad parameters to allow people on all sides to know what may or may not be available? I should be particularly grateful if the Minister addressed his remarks not so much to maintenance of the network—that is fairly straightforward and can be easily done by Network Rail—as to enhancements, which may or may not take place in a particular year. In other words, are the Government and the devolved Administrations seeking a formula, or will there be an annual negotiation process?
11.15 am
|
