|
Mr. McNulty: At the risk of sounding like a Liberal Democrat, I suggest that there will probably be a bit of both. Detailed negotiations will be needed on the first transfer of resources, but we hope—I think that both sides agree—that there will be a degree of a formulaic approach thereafter. I take the point about maintenance versus enhancement. That must be part of discussions with us, Network Rail and others, and the relationship between enhancements and maintenance will be an issue in terms of cross-national railway lines and more locally controlled lines. Those remain matters for discussion. I am not being facetious; the answer is a bit of both. We are trying to resolve the issue around a package in the first instance, and a formula thereafter. It is not necessary on either side for there to be some sort of annual bidding war and arm-wrestling contest.
Mr. Thomas: I accept what the Minister says. It makes perfect sense in the context of getting the process moving, but for the future, will the formula be the Barnett formula or some other formula that relates specifically to the cost and use of railways in different parts of the UK?
Mr. McNulty: As I said, the negotiations are ongoing, and ongoing means ongoing. I am sure that those involved are having as much fun as we are discussing an array of options and particular futures in relation to that settlement, and that is entirely appropriate. If at any stage I can report anything to the Committee by letter or in person about the negotiations regarding Scotland or Wales, I shall be more than happy to do so.
I am conscious of the time, and it would be nice to dispatch schedule 1 by the end of the sitting.
Mr. Knight rose—
Column Number: 33
Mr. McNulty: I must also admit to an error, but I shall first give way.
Mr. Knight: We wait with bated breath to hear the Minister admit to his error.
I ask the Minister to move from equity to transparency, and I refer him to paragraph 15 of schedule 1, on pages 62 and 63, which discusses statements of policy made either by the Secretary of State or by Scottish Ministers. Sub-paragraph (6) envisages a scenario in which a statement of policy is not published, and says that that will not
''affect the validity of any selection made.''
Will the Minister give a commitment that the Labour Government will make statements of policy, and that Labour Ministers of the Scottish Parliament will also make such statements?
Mr. McNulty: Again, it is not for me to speak for others, but there are already numerous statements of policy about the future of rail, not least including the White Papers issued in July. Our future strategy and all the consequences of the review will be published and in the public domain. This is the most substantial devolution of power since the Scotland Act 1998 in terms of Scottish rail, and I cannot foresee a circumstance in which there will not be a statement of policy from the Scottish Executive, although it is not for me to speak on their behalf.
I am conscious that we will probably have to return to the fun that is schedule 1, so the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait to hear about the error, as I shall first deal with a few points that were appropriately raised. On the point made by the hon. Member for Christchurch, I appreciate that the paper that I promised on Second Reading was made available only this morning, so hon. Members probably have not had the chance to read it. Under the heading, ''Implementing the White Paper; changing the structures'', it starts to put some flesh on the bones of what the Department's rail unit will look like post SRA.
The paper says that we anticipate some 250 to 280 people being involved in the new rail group in the DFT. Currently, there are not only 430 people at the SRA looking after rail, but 100 people in the Department who do so. Those 530-odd people will be reduced to 250 or 280 in terms of the Department; perhaps 50 others from elsewhere in the SRA will go to the RPC and certainly to the ORR, while a few will go to Network Rail. That reduction of up to 200 does not mean that there will be 200 redundancies; other options will be explored, and there are ongoing discussions with those individuals and the unions now that the high-level element is in place.
Some of the SRA functions that are being abolished are functions that it currently shares, such as penalty fares. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman, hand on heart, how many SRA staff are involved in penalty fares at this very moment. It is a shared function and some of it will come back to the Department. The same applies to the functions to be abolished under paragraph 36.
Column Number: 34
We will consider boosting the local dimensions of some of those functions, affording greater local control over some of the penalty fare structures. In some areas, including Tyne and Wear, it takes a parliamentary order to change penalty fares. I do not understand why that happens; that is why we are examining it. It might not please my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge, because a number of people just carry £10 in their top pockets when travelling on the Tyne and Wear metro, on the off-chance that they will be caught every now and then. They pay it over, and their free travel is covered for the rest of the time. There are some concerns in the area that that needs to change. Tyne and Wear needs a parliamentary slot of some sort to enable that change. We are considering that, too.
Much of what the Bill does, as will become apparent as we trundle through it, is enabling. Any number of matters of substance and detail follow from it, rather than being contained in it. The Committee should take that on board.
Mr. Knight: On the Minister's point about Tyne and Wear, the long title of the Bill is extremely wide. Why does he not introduce a measure in this legislation?
Mr. McNulty: That is an interesting point, but it is the reverse of what I was saying about the need for the SRA, as a railway-specific body, to have integrated functions under the Bill. The powers that we want to give to local authorities or enhance for them invariably involve penalty fares across public transport, so it would not necessarily be appropriate to introduce them in the Bill. We think that we can do that in other ways, and we shall explore those.
I am tempted to try to explain the error that I have mentioned in three minutes and dispatch the schedule, although I am not sure whether that is possible. In paragraph 20(5), we refer to a service provided or secured immediately before the commencement of the paragraph by the Secretary of State. Of course, that is nonsense; it should say ''by the SRA'', because it refers to the winding up of services that are currently carried out by the SRA. We do not have to look at the provision in detail now; it is a drafting error and I shall introduce an amendment to correct it. I shall also have a note drafted so that everybody is clear what the error was: it should say SRA rather than Secretary of State.
It has been important for us to spend some time on the schedule, because it contains the meat or at least the framework of the post-SRA world; that is why it takes up 14 pages. I am sure that everybody has read it, but it is worth reflecting on it for a while, because the characterisation that we are getting rid of the SRA and that all its functions are coming back to the Government is not appropriate. There are elements relating to the change of previous relationships between the Office of Rail Regulation and the Department that involve some SRA staff, and elements to do with Network Rail that include some of the functions currently performed by the SRA. It is worth reading the schedule to see the route map for the future of rail post-SRA.
Mr. Chope: Will the Minister give way?
Column Number: 35
Mr. McNulty: I will not.
I commend the schedule to the Committee.
Mr. Chope: I am disappointed that the Minister did not give way. The whole point of debate in Committee is to have some flexibility. He referred to a document that he laid on the Table this morning, but he has not told us whether it responds to the concerns that I
Column Number: 36
expressed. I made some perfectly reasonable points, and I should have thought that it was possible for the Minister to say, in respect of each of the paragraphs in the Schedule—
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.
| 
